This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2001-01-17 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we sustain the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Jay Ar Sumadia as indemnity for his untimely demise.[19] We cannot, however, sustain the award of actual damages in the amount of P14,500.00. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party. There is no such proof to sustain the award of actual damages other than the testimony of the sole prosecution witness. The prosecution did not present any receipt or other evidence to support the claim. We sustain the award of moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 considering that there is evidence that the father experienced moral suffering.[20] Moral damages may be awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim upon sufficient proof of "physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury.[21] As the aggravating circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime, the award of exemplary damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code is sustained, [22] however, the amount is reduced to P20,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[23] | |||||
|
2000-05-09 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| As regards the civil liability, the amount of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is upheld as it conforms with prevailing jurisprudence.[28] Actual damages cannot be awarded since the records show that the prosecution failed to substantiate the bare testimony of the widow, Paulino Ygot, with other corroborative evidence. The Court can only grant such amount for expenses if they are supported by receipts.[29] Moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 awarded by the trial court is reasonable considering the pain[30] suffered by the victim's widow. Moral damages, which include mental anguish, serious anxiety and wounded feelings, may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in the victim's death.[31] However, the award of exemplary damages should be deleted. Exemplary damage is awarded in criminal offenses when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[32] There is none in this case. | |||||
|
2000-03-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The trial court, however, found that Diche's testimony is credible. Time and again we have ruled that the appreciation of credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court and is given great weight, unless its appreciation do not conform with the evidence on record.[18] Moreover, from the stenographic notes, it is easy to discern that Diche's testimony was straightforward and unflinching, despite the defense's assertion that Diche could not have witnessed the actual shooting of Capinig since the former was still inside the bakery when the chase of the victim happened. Diche did not waver in saying that it was appellant whom he saw approach and shoot the victim at the back. There was no hesitation in his idenitification. He had known appellant for nine (9) years. We find likewise that Diche's testimony deserves the weight accorded to it by the trial court. | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We agree that treachery attended the commission of the crime. Treachery is present when the shooting was unexpected and sudden, giving the unarmed victim no chance whatsoever to defend himself.[57] The two conditions for treachery to be present are (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him.[58] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We now come to the proper determination of crime committed, in view of the attending circumstances. The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[24] The attack was not only sudden, it was unexpected, as the victim even cried out in surprise "Why are you firing at me, I have not done anything wrong!"[25] Further, appellant deliberately or consciously adopted the means of attack as shown by the fact that he even wrapped the gun inside a jacket prior to shooting the victim. | |||||
|
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. |
||||
| As proved, the crime committed by the three appellants is murder, since the killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery attended the killing because at the time of the shooting, the victim was unarmed, sitting inside his house, and was evidently not in a position to defend himself.[43] Further, appellants consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by them when they went to the house of the victim armed with shotguns.[44] | |||||
|
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] | |||||