Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HOMER MAGDARAOG Y SALONA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180496 2014-04-02	PEOPLE v. ROY SAN GASPAR DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court also affirms the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each.[48] The CA's award of temperate damages must also be sustained. In People v. Andres[49] and People v. Magdaraog[50] the Court said: "[W]e declared in the case of People v. Villanueva, that:
	GR No. 187044 2011-09-14	PEOPLE v. RENATO LAGAT Y GAWAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, we affirm the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of Jose Biag and P50,000.00 as moral damages for the proven mental suffering of his wife as a result of his untimely death. However, when actual damages proven by receipts during trial amount to less than P25,000.00, as in this case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount.[55] Thus, an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the amount of P14,900.00 that the Court of Appeals awarded as actual damages is proper in this case.
	GR No. 183094 2010-09-22	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BARDE PEREZ, J.
This Court affirms the appellate court's award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages to each of the surviving victims, Purisima and Ligaya. It is beyond doubt that these two surviving victims were hospitalized and spent money for their medication. However, Purisima failed to present any receipt for her hospitalization and medication. Nevertheless, it could not be denied that she suffered pecuniary loss; thus, it is only prudent to award P25,000.00 to her as temperate damages.[89] Ligaya, on the other hand, presented receipts for her hospitalization and medication but the receipts were less than P25,000.00. In People v. Magdaraog[90] citing People v. Andres, Jr.,[91] when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00 as in this case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount.
	GR No. 186119 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to actual damages, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals awarded only the amount of P20,000.00, since the prosecution was only able to prove this amount via an official receipt. The award of P25,000.00 for temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial court.[54] Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss, although the exact amount was not proved.[55] In People v. Magdaraog,[56] we pronounced that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages proven exceeds P25,000.00, then temperate damages may no longer be awarded; actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead be granted. Thus, in lieu of actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 are awarded to the heirs of the victim.
	GR No. 175594 2007-09-28	PEOPLE v. JUNJUN DUCABO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Once a person gains familiarity with another, identification becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victim's and eyewitness' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[22] (Emphasis supplied.) The argument of the appellant that Rolando's failure to identify the firearm used in killing the victim strengthened the fact that he did not witness the shooting incident deserves scant consideration. It is already well established that the identification and the presentation of the murder weapon are not indispensable to the prosecution's cause when the accused has positively been identified.[23] Since Rolando has positively identified the appellant, his failure to identify and present the firearm used in killing the victim cannot be considered fatal to his testimony.