This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-03-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| On August 30, 2000, a compromise agreement[4] was entered into by the parties whereby the estate of Lourdes was partitioned. A decision[5] dated September 13, 2000 was rendered by the RTC pursuant to the said compromise agreement. The compromise agreement with respect to TCT No. 24475 is reproduced below: 5. That the parties hereto hereby agree to recognize, acknowledge and respect: | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Now, on Jaime's civil liability. The victim's heirs should be awarded civil indemnity of P50,000, which is mandatory upon proof of the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the accused for the death. Likewise, moral damages in the sum of P50,000 should be awarded even in the absence of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering by the victim's relatives conformably with People v. Carillo,[29] People v. Panela,[30] and People v. Panado.[31] | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| As to Merle Castro, it is unfortunate that the TSNs of her testimony in the cases against Caraig were irretrievably lost and could not anymore be reproduced, and her testimony could not be retaken. Moreover, the decision of the trial court did not mention of a testimony on her moral suffering. What remained in the records is the TSN of her testimony during the trial of Laomoc, where she declared that she experienced "difficulties in life" as a consequence of Melencio's death and that she and her children missed him so much. However, this testimony was not adopted in the cases against Caraig; hence, it cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of determining the civil liabilities of Caraig. Nevertheless, conformably with People v. Carillo,[49] People v. Panela,[50] and People v. Panado,[51] where we reconsidered our policy on moral damages and held that an award therefor is mandatory and does not require allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, we uphold the award of moral damages in favor of Melencio's heirs even granting that there is no allegation and proof of their emotional suffering. We reiterate what we said in People v. Panado:Unlike in the crime of rape, we grant moral damages in murder or homicide only when the heirs of the victim have alleged and proved mental suffering. However, as borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering. Verily Hilda and her son Louie Gee would forever carry the emotional wounds of the vicious killing of a husband and a father. With or without proof, this fact can never be denied; since it is undisputed, it must be considered proved.[52] | |||||
|
2002-02-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In order that abuse of superior strength may qualify the killing to murder, it must be established that the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[24] In the case at bar, there was no clear indication whether the accused-appellant together with his companion purposely used their joint efforts and weapons to consummate the crime. In any event, assuming that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, this is absorbed in treachery.[25] | |||||