This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-02-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the fourth issue, treachery is present in this case. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[27] In this case, the victim Dr. Fidelito Manaois was shot fourteen times resulting in numerous wounds in his body. He was attacked suddenly and unexpectedly while on the way home aboard a tricycle. He was shot several times in the back and so was the eyewitness Angelito Malanum. He was shot without warning and with no means to put up any defense. The manner of commission of the crime was deliberately adopted when the assailants purposely stopped their motorcycle, turned around and followed the tricycle where the victim and Malanum rode. The assailants then attacked the victim and Malanum in a secluded area to ensure that no one could witness the crime or come to the victim's aid. | |||||
|
2007-05-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of an assignment of error or not.[46] So, while we agree that there is no evident premeditation present, we cannot agree that the offense was not qualified by treachery. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[47] At the time he was killed, Arsenio was in his home, unarmed, with his family, while preparing to sleep. There was no way he could have been aware of the nefarious acts much less resist the attack by Buban who surreptitiously inserted a deadly rifle through a hole in his wall. | |||||
|
2004-11-25 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The actual damages awarded by the trial court reduced by the Court of Appeals should be further reduced. In People v. Duban,[51] it was held that only substantiated and proven expenses or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized. A list of expenses (Exhibit "J"),[52] and the contract/receipt for the construction of the tomb (Exhibit "F")[53] in this case, cannot be considered competent proof and cannot replace the official receipts necessary to justify the award. Hence, actual damages should be further reduced to P78,160.00,[54] which was the amount supported by official receipts. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The killing was qualified by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means or methods in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[48] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[49] In the case at bar, the victim was inside the Perez residence and was busy preparing for the wedding of his son, Isidro Velecina, to Dory Perez, the daughter of Roger Perez. The victim was unarmed and was deprived of any means to defend himself, or to evade the sudden and unexpected assault. | |||||
|
2004-06-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The killing was qualified by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means or methods in the execution thereof which tend, directly and specifically, to insure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[17] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[18] In this case, the victim was shot from behind, at close range, impervious to the peril to his life. The victim was unarmed and had no chance or means to defend himself or avert the appellant's assault. | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[68] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[69] By way of exception, testimonial evidence may suffice if the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[70] Cristeta testified that her father was self-employed and earned his living by harvesting corn twice a year for which he had a gross income of P5,000 per harvest. He also sold around 100 fighting cocks a year, for which he received a minimum of P500.00 per cock net of expenses or a total income of P50,000.00.[71] These statements remain unchallenged and uncontroverted by the appellants. Thus, the Court affirms that Belardo Pagapulan's gross annual income is P60,000.00. In People vs. Napalit,[72] we set the formula for computation of loss of earning capacity, thus: Net earning capacity 2/3 x (80 age of the victim at the time of his death) x a reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received by the heirs for support | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Conformably to recent jurisprudence, the award of indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000 is sustained, it being awarded without need of proof other than the fact that a crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim and that the accused was responsible therefor.[54] In view of the attendance of treachery, qualifying the killing to murder, an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 is in order.[55] | |||||