Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDDIE TALAY v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 147773-74 2008-02-18	DENNIS MANGANGEY v. SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[24] Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[25] Conspiracy must be proven as convincingly as the criminal act itself like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[26] For a co-conspirator to be liable for the acts of the others, there must be intentional participation in the conspiracy with a view to further a common design.[27] Except for the mastermind, it is necessary that a co-conspirator should have performed some overt act actual commission of the crime itself, active participation as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime, or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.[28]
	GR NO. 157632 2006-12-06	JOSE S. ROQUE v. JAIME T. TORRES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Prior to the incident, or on 9 September 1988, respondent instituted an Action[3] for cancellation of OCTs No. NP-419 and NP-422 in the name of petitioner's son Rafael Roque before the RTC of Antipolo which was dismissed by the trial court in an Order[4] dated 26 June 1989. According to the court a quo, therein petitioner Torres' action was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in the Bureau of Lands, consistent with the established doctrine that where a party seeks for the cancellation of a Free Patent, he must pursue his action in the proper agency and a review by the court will not be permitted unless administrative remedies have been exhausted. The trial court also declared that the said action was in effect an action for reversion under Section 101 of the Public Land Act, thus, the action should be in the name of the government and not the private complainants. Respondent appealed the dismissal before the Court of Appeals, which later affirmed the decision of the lower court in a Decision[5] dated 11 June 1990. Respondent's appeal to this Court was also dismissed in a Resolution dated 11 February 1991.
	GR NO. 163351 2005-06-21	ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may also be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Here, petitioner failed to render aid or assistance to his victims after the collision.[24] Based on the prevailing jurisprudence, the award for exemplary damages for homicide is P25,000.[25]
	GR No. 153008 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. LARRY CACHAPERO Y BASILIO PANGANIBAN, J.
The trial court's award of P25,000 for exemplary damages should be deleted. Such damages may be given only when one or more aggravating circumstances are alleged in the information and proved during the trial.[40] In the present case, there are no such circumstances.
	GR No. 147231 2004-02-18	PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The award of actual damages must also be modified. While appellant admitted the amount of P19,000.00 as actual damages,[26] the trial court only awarded the amount of P16,000.00.[27] Ordinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages, but where the amount claimed was admitted, it should be granted.[28] Consequently, the heirs of the victim is entitled to be awarded the amount of P19,0000.00 as actual damages.
	GR No. 147314 2004-02-06	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO M. SANTIAGO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The heirs of the victim Purita Sotero are entitled to P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto;[31] P50,000 as moral damages;[32] P25,000 as exemplary damages;[33] and P25,000 as temperate damages.[34]
	GR No. 139692 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. JESSIELITO BADAJOS Y SUMBIDAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court awarded P144,000.00 for actual damages, P12,000.00 for his lost earnings and P9,326.00 for the burial and wake despite the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the same. The award shall be deleted. However, the heirs are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages for burial and wake expenses.[27] The award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in accord with existing jurisprudence.[28] As to the award of moral damages, the same is increased to P50,000.00, conformably to current jurisprudence.[29] The heirs are entitled to P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[30]