Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOSE SILVESTRE Y CRUZ

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 133224 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. CARLITO BULAN BELLOSILLO, J.
The question of inconsistency arose from the sworn statement executed by Danilo Sause before the police.[13] Inconsistencies between the testimony and the sworn statement were explained to be due to the fact that affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves but by others and affiants are only made to sign them.[14] Certain discrepancies between declarations made in an affidavit and those made at the witness stand seldom discredit the declarant.[15] Sworn statements, taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiry.[16] They are generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given in open court.[17] In other words, whenever there is inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[18]
	GR Nos. 131022 2000-12-14	PEOPLE v. ROGER ANIVADO MENDOZA, J.
The award of the civil liability must likewise be modified. The trial court ordered accused-appellants to pay the heirs of Restituto Acenas the amounts of P500,000.00 as moral damages in view of his social stature as a former vice mayor and councilor, and P150,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages. The amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages is excessive. Moral damages are not awarded to punish the defendant but to compensate the heirs for the injuries to their feelings.[44] The award should thus be reduced to P50,000.00. In accordance with our rulings,[45] the additional amount of P50,000.00 should, however, be ordered paid by accused-appellants as indemnity for the death of Restituto Acenas.
	GR No. 132330 2000-11-28	PEOPLE v. VS.SPO1 JOSE BANGCADO BELLOSILLO, J.
Although Clemente admitted to be suffering from blurred vision, Cogasi's positive identification of appellants could be sufficient to establish their identities. Indeed, there is no law that requires that the testimony of a single witness must be corroborated except, of course, when expressly mandated. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, in determining the credibility of witnesses and the value of each piece of evidence. In fact, the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict,[5] and must be given full faith and credence when no reason to falsely testify is shown.[6]
	GR No. 128900 2000-07-14	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO S. ANTONIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Silvestre[55] and People v. Verde,[56] we held that the absence of documentary evidence to support the prosecution's claim for damages for loss of earning capacity of the deceased does not preclude recovery of said damages. There, we awarded damages for loss of earning capacity computed on the basis of the testimonies of the victim's wives. This was reiterated in People v. Dizon,[57] where we held that:"As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. In People vs. Verde (G. R. No. 119077, February 10, 1999), the non-presentation of documentary evidence to support the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity did not prevent this Court from awarding said damages. The testimony of the victim's wife as to the earning capacity of her murdered husband, who was then 48 years old and was earning P200.00 a day as a tricycle driver, sufficed to establish the basis for such an award. x x x As in People vs. Verde, the Court is inclined to grant the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity despite the absence of documentary evidence." (Underscoring ours) In the case at bar, however, the award for compensatory damages should be calculated as follows:
	GR No. 120170 2000-05-30	PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO DIMAILIG y CARAIG PARDO, J.
Inasmuch as the Court can only give credit for expenses supported by receipts,[42] actual damages shall consist only of the duly documented sums of P10,239.40 for funeral services, P52.00 for the victim's burial at the La Loma Cemetery in Kalookan City, and P600.00 for the grave and niche.
	GR No. 130658 2000-05-04	PEOPLE v. ORLITO GADIN PARDO, J.
To justify an award of actual damages, it is necessary "to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, the actual amount of loss."[27] The award of actual damages can not be sustained without any tangible document to support such claim.[28] Thus, we delete the amount of actual damages, for lack of supporting evidence.[29]
	GR No. 128360 2000-03-02	PEOPLE v. EDGAR CRISPIN GONZAGA-REYES, J.
An affidavit is hearsay and has weak probative value, unless the affiant is placed on the witness stand to testify on it.[21] Being hearsay evidence, it is inadmissible because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of his right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statement or writing is attributed.[22] The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him[23] is a fundamental right of every accused which may not be summarily done away with. Another reason why the right to confrontation is so essential is because the trial judgeÕs duty to observe and test the credibility of the affiant can only be met by his being brought to the witness stand.[24] That the affidavit formed part of the record of the preliminary investigation does not justify its being treated as evidence because the record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the record of the case in the RTC.[25] Such record must be introduced as evidence during trial, and the trial court is not compelled to take judicial notice of the same.[26] The prosecution having failed to present Cesar Delima as a witness, his sworn statement was patently inadmissible and deserves no consideration at all.
	GR No. 118670 2000-02-22	PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, we do not agree with the award given by the trial court for loss of earnings. As established, Dr. Belmonte was earning an average of P150,000.00 as practicing physician; P20,000.00 as professor of medicine per month or P2,088,000.00 per year. It was likewise established that Dr. Belmonte was only thirty-five (35) years old at the time of his death. Loss of earning capacity is computed based on the following formula:[14]
	GR No. 126397 2000-02-01	PEOPLE v. DANIEL MENDOZA CERBITO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
We must modify the computation of the award for loss of earning capacity. The absence of documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of the victim's sister for the loss will not preclude recovery for said amount.[24] Gloria Guinto, the victim's sister testified that when her brother died, he was 26 years old, single and was earning P4,000.00 a month as a member of the PNP. Loss of earning capacity is computed on the basis of the following formula:[25]