Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ADONIS ARADILLOS v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, dated November 5, 2007, of petitioner Lito Corpuz (petitioner), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] dated March 22, 2007 and Resolution[2] dated September 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with modification the Decision[3] dated July 30, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 186412 2011-09-07	PEOPLE v. ORLITO VILLACORTA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Under paragraph (1), Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. Moral damages compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by the victim and his family as being a proximate result of the wrongful act. An award requires no proof of pecuniary loss. Pursuant to previous jurisprudence, an award of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) moral damages is appropriate for less serious, as well as slight physical injuries.[33]
	GR No. 172834 2008-02-06	JUN MUPAS and GIL MUPAS v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
Assuming that Gil alias Banjo had any participation, there is likewise no evidence that he or Jun had intent to kill Rogelio. Intent to kill is the principal element of homicide or murder, in whatever stage of commission. Such intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor.[30]
	GR No. 172834 2008-02-06	JUN MUPAS and GIL MUPAS v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
The Court sustains the appellate court's award of P4,000.00 as temperate damages. Having suffered actual injuries, Rogelio is likewise entitled to moral damages.[40] The award of P5,000.00 as moral damages is sufficient under the circumstances.[41]
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
The essential ingredients of physical injuries constitute and form part of those constituting the felony of murder.[61] Simply put, an accused may be convicted of slight, less serious or serious physical injuries in a prosecution for homicide or murder, inasmuch as the infliction of physical injuries could lead to any of the latter offenses when carried out to its utmost degree despite the fact that an essential requisite of the crime of homicide or murder intent to kill is not required in a prosecution for physical injuries. [62]
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
The trial court and the CA, however, blundered a bit in awarding P100,000.00 as moral damages. Prevailing jurisprudence dictates that in murder, an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is sufficient. [68] For the less serious physical injuries inflicted on Virginia Boji, moral damages in the sum of P10,000.00 is warranted.[69]