This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-02-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to disturb the RTC's findings, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of Mario Makahilig is more plausible than the appellant's alibi. Positive identification, where categorical, consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, prevails over alibi and denial,[11] particularly where the appellant had not shown the physical impossibility of his access to the victim at the time and place of the crime.[12] The RTC correctly appreciated conspiracy since the simultaneous acts of the accused during the stabbing disclosed a unity of objective.[13] Treachery qualified the killing to murder. Although frontal, the attack was unexpected, and the unarmed victim was in no position to repel the attack.[14] Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2010-07-13 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Since the accused here did not adduce evidence that Alfredo and Allan were ill-motivated in testifying against their own neighbors, their testimonies can be believed.[31] It helps that the autopsy report conforms to their narration of what the assailants did to Yrigan. So, if either of them was imprecise in recalling who did what in that brief stunning moment of the attack, such mistake would be understandable. What is important is that they were in full agreement as to the mode of attack adopted and the identities of those who took part in it. Ascertaining which assailants gripped the victim's hands to immobilize him or struck blows that killed him would not affect their liabilities. The liabilities of conspirators are the same whatever their individual parts in the offense were. | |||||
|
2010-03-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals awarded the heirs of Robert Alisbo the amount of P720,000.00 by reason of the victim's loss of earning capacity. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[33] In this case, no documentary evidence was presented to prove the claim of the victim's heirs for damages by reason of loss of earning capacity. However, the victim's father testified that at the time of his son's death, he was only 20 years old and was working as a mason with a monthly income of P3,000.00. We find the father's testimony sufficient to justify the award of damages for loss of earning capacity. | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity.[36] By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[37] | |||||