This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The RTC only awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Court deems it proper to award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 following precedents.[20] "Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, in this case, treachery. This is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. The imposition of exemplary damages is also justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code in order to set an example for the public good."[21] | |||||
|
2010-03-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We note that both the trial court and the CA awarded the heirs of the victim only the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[23] we also award the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. Further, we also award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to our ruling in People v. Angeles[24] where we held that "under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, (in this case, abuse of superior strength). This is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. The imposition of exemplary damages is also justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code in order to set an example for the public good." In addition, and in lieu of actual damages, we also award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[25] | |||||
|
2010-03-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself. Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[25] In the instant case, there is no doubt that the victim was surprised by the attack coming from the appellant. The victim was merely walking along the street unsuspecting of any harm that would befall his person. That appellant shouted "ano, gusto n'yo, away?" immediately before stabbing the victim could not be deemed as sufficient warning to the latter of the impending attack on his person. Records show that after challenging the unsuspecting victim to a fight, appellant immediately lunged at him and stabbed him at the back. Under the circumstances, the victim was indisputably caught off guard by the sudden and deliberate attack coming from the appellant, leaving him with no opportunity to raise any defense against the attack. The mode of the attack adopted by the appellant rendered the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself. | |||||