This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The amount of damages recoverable for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased is based on two factors: 1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed; and 2) the rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs of the deceased should be fixed. The first factor is based on the formula (2/3 x 80 - age of the deceased at the time of his death = life expectancy) which is adopted from the American Expectancy Table of Mortality.[60] Net income is computed by deducting from the amount of the victim's gross income the amount of his living expenses. As there is no proof of Biag's living expenses, the net income is estimated to be 50% of the gross annual income.[61] Thus, the loss of earning capacity of the deceased is computed as follows: Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x [gross annual income - living expenses][62] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The trial court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery on the ground that appellant suddenly attacked the victim.[20] However, it does not always follow that because the attack is sudden and unexpected, it is tainted with treachery.[21] In treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted.[22] This means that the accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or to retaliate. The mode of attack, therefore, must be planned by the offender, and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.[23] While the attack on Nathaniel was sudden and unexpected, there is no showing that appellant consciously adopted his mode of attack in order to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. Neither was Nathaniel completely caught by surprise. He and appellant grappled for the knife. Also, he was able to run away before he was eventually killed. It bears emphasis that he struggled for the possession of the knife and had the opportunity to grab it and defend himself. | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The requisites for the admissibility of dying declarations have already been established in a long line of cases. An ante-mortem statement or dying declaration is entitled to probative weight if: (1) at the time the declaration was made, death was imminent and the declarant was conscious of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death; (3) the declaration relates to facts which the victim was competent to testify to; (4) the declarant thereafter died; and (5) the declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarant's death is the subject of the inquiry.[5] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The trial court erroneously appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery against appellant on the ground that the stabbing was somewhat sudden and unexpected, without provocation from the victim.[30] However, it does not always follow that because the attack is sudden and unexpected, it is tainted with treachery.[31] Significantly, in treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted.[32] This means that the accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or to retaliate.[33] The mode of attack, therefore, must be planned by the offender, and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.[34] In the case at bar, there is reasonable doubt that appellant deliberately and consciously adopted a mode of attack to kill the victim without risk to himself considering that both appellant and the victim were then attending a wedding party, and it was the victim who frontally approached the appellant who at that time was watching the dance, and asked if they could talk outside the dance area. Appellant answered that they could talk right then and there, after which appellant stabbed the victim, hitting him on the left chest. It appears that the decision of appellant to stab the victim was sudden. The suddenness of an attack, does not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim's helpless position was accidental.[35] Considering the rule that treachery cannot be inferred but must be proven as fully and convincingly as the crime itself, any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused-appellant.[36] Absent any other circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code that would qualify the killing to murder, appellant can only be held liable for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. | |||||
|
2001-07-20 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Net Life Gross Living Earning = expectancy x Annual - expenses Capacity [2/3 (80- age at death)] income (GAI) (50% of GAI) = [(2/3) (80-29)] x P200,000.00 - P100,000.00 = [(2/3) (51)] x P100,000.00 = 34 x P100,0 00.00 = P3,400,000.00 The victim's wife, Ofelia Diego, testified that Roel Diego, as a farmer, had an annual gross sales of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), and that after deducting his expenses of production, he had an annual gross income of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) during a normal season. From this, is further deducted the amount of his living expenses. As there is no proof as to the amount of the living expenses of the deceased, it is estimated to be fifty (50%) per cent of his gross annual income.[42] In the instant case, fifty (50%) per cent of the gross annual income of the victim is One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). After deducting the amount of living expenses from his gross annual income, his net annual income is One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). The life expectancy of the victim, Roel Diego, is 34, which when multiplied by the net annual income of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) is equivalent to Three Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,400,000.00), which is the amount of the indemnity due for the loss of earning capacity of the said deceased. | |||||