This case has been cited 20 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x [gross annual income living expenses][66] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x [gross annual income - living expenses][62] | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The award of damages also needs modification. The award of consequential damages in the amount of P500,000 is deleted for lack of factual basis. Instead, we award in favor of the victim's heirs the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto.[33] The award of moral damages is also reduced from P100,000 to P50,000, consistent with our recent case law.[34] In addition, we award another P25,000 as temperate damages[35] considering that it has been shown that the victim's family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof was not sufficiently established. | |||||
|
2003-05-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's sole defense of alibi and denial, i.e., that he was then on a drinking spree with his relatives, must likewise fail. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed. It must likewise be shown that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[35] Here, he claims to be somewhere only two and one-half meters away from the rape scene. Assuming that he was really out there drinking, he could have easily returned home to commit the rape and then rejoin his drinking buddies, without any of them the wiser. | |||||
|
2002-04-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's main defense of alibi and denial, i.e., that he was then at the seashore catching shrimps[70] in the evening just before the alleged rape, is equally unavailing. For alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met.[71] It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed. It must likewise be shown that he was so far away that it was impossible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[72] No such showing was made here by appellant. | |||||
|
2002-01-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, the award of damages needs modification. The trial court improperly awarded P50,000 as moral damages. Moral damages can be awarded only upon sufficient proof that the aggrieved party is entitled to it in accordance with Article 2217 of the Civil Code.[29] Nothing on record shows that the wife asked for moral damages. Since moral damages was not prayed for and no evidence to substantiate the award for moral damages was presented,[30] moral damages may not be awarded. Nonetheless, the heirs of the victim are entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[31] | |||||
|
2000-11-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The heirs are also entitled to damages for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased Leandro Adawan. The fact that the prosecution did not present documentary evidence to support its claim for damages for loss of earning capacity of the deceased does not preclude recovery of the damages.[46] Testimonial evidence is sufficient to establish a basis for which the court can make a fair and reasonable estimate of the damages for the loss of earning capacity.[47] Moreover, in fixing the damages for loss of earning capacity of a deceased victim, the Court can consider the nature of its occupation, his educational attainment and the state of his health at the time of his death.[48] The testimony of Adawan's father sufficiently established the basis for making such an award. It was shown that Adawan was thirty-seven (37) years old at the time of his death in 1993 and earned P4,000.00 a month as a mechanic. | |||||
|
2000-05-09 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Finally, we must also modify the award for loss of earning capacity. Paulina Ygot, wife of the deceased Aladino Ygot testified that the latter was thirty-one (31) years old at the time of his death on May 8, 1991 and earning P4,000.00 per month as a security guard employed with the Defender's Security Agency.[33] Loss of earning capacity is computed based on the following formula:[34] | |||||
|
2000-04-28 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| It appears that Dr. Maximino Picio, Jr. was 64[34] years old at the time of his death on March 14, 1995. Her widow testified that he used to receive a monthly salary of P13,000.00 as Municipal Health Officer of San Manuel, Isabela. In accordance with the American Expectancy Table of Mortality which was adopted by the Court,[35] the loss of earning capacity shall be computed as follows:Net Earning Capacity (X) = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual Income Living Expenses e.g. 50% of annual gross income) | |||||
|
2000-03-17 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| The last issue to be resolved is the propriety of the amounts awarded by the trial court to the heirs of Antonio Garcia. We affirm the award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Antonio Garcia as this is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[32] Considering that the heirs of the victim asked for it and testified that they experienced moral suffering, the award of moral damages is proper but in the reduced amount of P50,000.00, as this is also in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[33] We cannot sustain the award of P9,000.00 as expenses for the wake and the additional P13,000.00 as expenses for the funeral. The records show that the prosecution failed to substantiate the bare assertion of the widow, Teresita Maningas Garcia, with other corroborative evidence. The Court can only grant such amount for expenses if they are supported by receipts.[34] Finally, we must modify the award for loss of earning capacity. It was established that Antonio Garcia was 39 years old at the time of his death and earning P150.00 a day[35] or P4,500.00 a month as a tricycle driver. Loss of earning capacity is computed on the basis of the following formula:[36] | |||||
|
2000-03-09 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| We affirm the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Ramil Sabturani as this is in accord with current jurisprudence.[69] However, we note that the trial court erred in awarding to the heirs of the victim the lump sum of P100,000.00 as actual and moral damages. These are separate in nature and require separate determination. | |||||
|
2000-02-22 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Dindo Panganiban was eighteen years old on July 4, 1994. As testified to by Juana Panganiban, he was earning P100 to P150 each day, or an average daily income of P125 or P3,750 monthly. From this monthly income must be deducted the reasonable amount of P1,875 representing the living and other necessary expenses of the deceased.[28] Thus, the victim's net annual income would be P22,500. The lost earnings of the deceased should be computed as follows:= [ 2/3 x (80 18) ] x [ 22,500 ] | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the matter of damages, we note that the trial court ordered appellants to jointly and severally pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 for moral damages. We find this award supported by testimony in the records but only in the amount of P30,000.00. Pursuant to current jurisprudence,[63] we also find that the heirs of the victim are entitled to a death indemnity of P50,000.00. We further find the award of P29,000.00 as actual damages in order. Lastly, considering that the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling,[64] the amount of P20,000.00 should also be awarded as exemplary damages. | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defense of alibi holds no water, for he himself admitted "that he had occasions to go to Valenzuela, Metro Manila from November 20, 1990 up to April 1993 whenever he has nothing to do in Baliuag."[24] It is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the offense was committed. It must likewise be shown by the defense that he was so far away so that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[25] For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met.[26] These appellant failed to do. We have held that where there is even the slightest chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold.[27] Further, alibi becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by close friends who may not be impartial witnesses.[28] Thus, in the light of the positive identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime, his defense of alibi and denial cannot be sustained.[29] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the defense of alibi, the trial court dismissed his version of the story as a "rehearsed scenario" and "tailored to fit and suit the defense of alibi." The trial court did not find it physically impossible for appellant to be at the locus criminis since there were vehicles plying the eight-kilometer road between Malis and Samariniana. For alibi to be considered, it is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the offense was committed. It must likewise be shown that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[22] Thus while appellant testified that he was at Samariniana at the time of the commission of the offense, his testimony is bereft of any explanation that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime. Further, prosecution witness Medina practically demolished appellant's alibi when he testified that appellant was at the locus criminis on the night of the incident. In view of appellant's positive identification as the assailant, his alibi holds no water. The rule is that the positive and categorical assertions of witnesses generally prevail over bare denials.[23] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to damages, the award of P50,000.00 as compensatory or actual damages must be disallowed since it is not supported by receipts.[29] However, the heirs of the victim are entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity under our current rulings.[30] The award of moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00, being supported by the testimony of the victim's widow, is sustained under Article 2206 (3) of the New Civil Code. Under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed "when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." There being no aggravating circumstances, the award of P20,000.00 as corrective or exemplary damages should be deleted. | |||||
|
2000-02-10 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| We cannot sustain the award of P82,000.00 as actual damages in favor of the heirs of Elarde Magno. The records show that the prosecution failed to substantiate the bare assertion of the widow, Jovina Magno, with other corroborative evidence. The Court can only grant such amount for expenses if they are supported by receipts.[32] In the absence thereof, no award for actual damages can be granted. For the same reason, the award of actual damages to the heirs of Isidro Barcelona should be reduced from P140,000.00 to P5,500.00 as the amount duly supported by documentary evidence. We affirm the award of P50,000.00 each to the heirs of Elarde Magno and Isidro Barcelona as indemnity for the deaths of Elarde and Isidro as this is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[33] We note, however, that the trial court erred in awarding to the heirs of the two victims lump sums of P100,000.00 each for moral and exemplary damages. These are separate in nature and require separate determination. Considering that the heirs of the victims asked for it and testified that they experienced moral suffering, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00[34] is awarded to the heirs of the victims to compensate them for the injuries to their feelings.[35] The award for exemplary damages must be deleted, considering the crime was committed without any other aggravating circumtances. Finally, we must also add the award for loss of earning capacity. Lilibeth Barcelona, sister of the deceased Isidro Barcelona testified that the latter was earning P145.00 a day[36] or P4,350.00 per month and the records reveal that he was twenty-seven (27) years old at the time of his death.[37] On the other hand, it was established that Elarde Magno was thirty-one (31) years old at the time of his death[38] and earning P4,5000.00 per month.[39] Loss of earning capacity is computed based on the following formula:[40] | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant Pablito Rendoque's defenses of denial and alibi, in our view, could not be sustained. Although supported by testimonies of his superior and the guard who relieved him on the night of the incident, as well as the guard's wife, they do not exculpate him. We have already ruled that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the offense was committed. It must likewise be shown that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[40] It should be noted that appellant was seen by said witnesses at his post at 7 o'clock in the evening, while the shooting incident occurred at 8 o'clock in the evening. Appellant failed to prove that it was impossible for him to have been physically present in the locus criminis at the very time of its commission. As to Quinciano Rendoque, Jr. and Esperato Salaquin, the other two appellants, their alibis are equally unavailing. Though the testimony of Placido Despojo sought to support them, their defense is far from persuasive. As observed by the trial court, there is no proof of physical impossibility for these appellants to be present in the locus criminis. Well settled is the doctrine that alibi is a weak defense and should be rejected when the identities of the accused, as in this case, have been sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the offense.[41] Hence, in the light of the positive identification of appellants by two eyewitnesses as the perpetrators of the crime, their defenses of denial and alibi could not prosper.[42] | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The award of death indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 should be increased to P50,000.00, pursuant to existing jurisprudence.[48] No moral damages can be awarded since the wife and daughter of the victim did not testify with regard to moral damages. In view of the attendance of an aggravating circumstance, pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00 should be awarded.[49] | |||||