Lawyerly

GR No. 188602

2010-02-04

NACHURA, J.

We also affirm the CA ruling that appellant is guilty of attempted murder, not of frustrated murder, in Criminal Case No. 03-3640 for the injury sustained by Dalit. No convincing proof was offered to show that the wound inflicted on Dalit was fatal and would have caused his death had medical help not been provided. It is well settled that where the wounds inflicted on the victim are not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, as the accused had not performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the victim's death.[24]

GR NO. 173478

2007-07-12

PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR D. SURONGON

GARCIA, J.

This brings us to appellant's civil liability about which the trial court completely ignored. In addition to the CA's award of moral and exemplary damages and civil indemnity, we find it proper that temperate damages must also be awarded to the heirs of Allan. The victim's mother testified that the family incurred P69,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses, but she was not able to present receipts. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered some pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved with certainty.[14] In People v. Abrazaldo,[15] we held that where, as in this case, the amount of actual damages cannot be determined because no receipts were presented to prove the same but it is shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages may be awarded, fixed at P25,000.00. Considering that funeral expenses were obviously incurred by the victim's heirs, an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is proper.

GR NO. 157057

2007-06-26

LEONIDAS EPIFANIO Y LAZARO v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Anent the award of P6,000.00 as damages, the Court notes that the receipts showing the expenses incurred during Crisaldo's hospitalization amounted only to P853.50.[32] As a general rule, a party seeking the award of actual damages must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award.[33] Only substantiated and proven expenses will be recognized in court. Nonetheless, in lieu of actual damages, the Court grants temperate damages of P6,000.00, as it cannot be denied that Crisaldo incurred expenses during his three-week stay in the provincial hospital, although the exact amount cannot be proved with certainty.[34]

GR No. 135862

2002-05-02

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL PRINCIPE Y MOLINA

PER CURIAM

In addition, the heirs are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in accordance with Art. 2219 of the Civil Code for the physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock caused by the manner by which Arlene was raped and killed.[41]

GR No. 140759

2002-01-24

PEOPLE v. JACINTO NARVAEZ

CARPIO, J.

A: Only the light from the perok-perok inside the hut and the flashlight. Q: And that light of perok-perok cannot even shed light outside the hut? A: No, sir. Q: That overall vicinity was very dark, you will admit that? A: Yes, sir, the surroundings are dark. Q. As a matter of fact, you can hardly identify persons at the distance of 150 meters away because of the dark? A. It is really very difficult to recognize person from that distance. Q. At the distance of 70 meters, because of darkness, in an open field, you have likewise difficulties to recognize a person? A. It is really very difficult to recognize."[25] (Emphasis supplied). Clearly, there was no other source of light outside of the shanty except for the one coming from the flashlight. Except for this light, Mendoza admitted that the surroundings of the shanty were "dark". Although it has been held in a line of cases that illumination produced by a flashlight is sufficient to permit identification of a person,[26] the flashlight in such cases is held by the witness and not by the accused.[27] This difference is significant because in the cases where it is the witness carrying the flashlight, he is able to point the light at the assailants and focus the light on their faces, thus identifying them. In the present case, where the flashlight was held by a companion of the assailants, the stream of light from the flashlight was most probably focused not on the faces of the assailants but either on the ground to light the way of the assailants, or on the shanty, or alternately on both.

GR No. 135936

2001-09-19

PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR

MENDOZA, J.

However, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated as the prosecution failed to prove that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a span of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[46]

GR No. 135936

2001-09-19

PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR

MENDOZA, J.

Based on the foregoing considerations, accused-appellant is guilty of murder and should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in line with the prevailing doctrine and no proof is needed since it is intended as indemnity for the death of the victim.[47] However, the award of P14,500.00 as actual damages should be reduced to P10,500.00 considering that only the latter amount, which covers funeral and burial expenses, is duly supported by receipts. The balance of P4,000.00 must be deleted as only a handwritten list of alleged expenses during the victim's wake was presented. In addition, consistent with this Court's rulings,[48] accused-appellant should be ordered to pay the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.

GR No. 132354

2001-09-13

PEOPLE v. DEOMEDES IGLESIA

MENDOZA, J.

With respect to the items of damages awarded by the trial court, we find the award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victim to be in accord with recent rulings of this Court.[34] However, we find the amount of P30,000.00 awarded as nominal damages to be excessive and should therefore be reduced. The amount of P15,000.00 would be appropriate considering that the heirs of the victim actually incurred hospital and funeral expenses as a result of the victim's death, although the exact amount thereof has not been adequately shown.[35] The amount of moral damages awarded should likewise be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with the current case law.[36]

GR No. 134565

2001-08-09

PEOPLE v. EX-KGD. LUDIVINO MIANA

MENDOZA, J.

Accused-appellants' defense is alibi. The rule is that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[25] In addition, accused-appellants were within a few meters from where the victim was assaulted, thus negating the requirement that for alibi to be successfully invoked, it must be impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[26]

GR No. 125698

2001-07-19

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO HAPA Y EBASCO

PARDO, J.

We affirm the trial court's award of civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as death indemnity.[49]

GR No. 134779

2001-07-06

PEOPLE v. HERSON FLORAGUE Y ESTALILLA

MENDOZA, J.

As regards the question of damages, however, we find the trial court's award of P400,000.00 as indemnity, in accordance with our rulings[50] on this question, to be excessive. Accused-appellant should only be made to pay the amount of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P50,000.00 for moral damages.

	GR No. 188602 2010-02-04	PEOPLE v. FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO NACHURA, J.
We also affirm the CA ruling that appellant is guilty of attempted murder, not of frustrated murder, in Criminal Case No. 03-3640 for the injury sustained by Dalit. No convincing proof was offered to show that the wound inflicted on Dalit was fatal and would have caused his death had medical help not been provided. It is well settled that where the wounds inflicted on the victim are not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, as the accused had not performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the victim's death.[24]
	GR NO. 173478 2007-07-12	PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR D. SURONGON GARCIA, J.
This brings us to appellant's civil liability about which the trial court completely ignored. In addition to the CA's award of moral and exemplary damages and civil indemnity, we find it proper that temperate damages must also be awarded to the heirs of Allan. The victim's mother testified that the family incurred P69,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses, but she was not able to present receipts. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered some pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved with certainty.[14] In People v. Abrazaldo,[15] we held that where, as in this case, the amount of actual damages cannot be determined because no receipts were presented to prove the same but it is shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages may be awarded, fixed at P25,000.00. Considering that funeral expenses were obviously incurred by the victim's heirs, an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is proper.
	GR NO. 157057 2007-06-26	LEONIDAS EPIFANIO Y LAZARO v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Anent the award of P6,000.00 as damages, the Court notes that the receipts showing the expenses incurred during Crisaldo's hospitalization amounted only to P853.50.[32] As a general rule, a party seeking the award of actual damages must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award.[33] Only substantiated and proven expenses will be recognized in court. Nonetheless, in lieu of actual damages, the Court grants temperate damages of P6,000.00, as it cannot be denied that Crisaldo incurred expenses during his three-week stay in the provincial hospital, although the exact amount cannot be proved with certainty.[34]
	GR No. 135862 2002-05-02	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL PRINCIPE Y MOLINA PER CURIAM
In addition, the heirs are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in accordance with Art. 2219 of the Civil Code for the physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock caused by the manner by which Arlene was raped and killed.[41]
	GR No. 140759 2002-01-24	PEOPLE v. JACINTO NARVAEZ CARPIO, J.
A: Only the light from the perok-perok inside the hut and the flashlight. Q: And that light of perok-perok cannot even shed light outside the hut? A: No, sir. Q: That overall vicinity was very dark, you will admit that? A: Yes, sir, the surroundings are dark. Q. As a matter of fact, you can hardly identify persons at the distance of 150 meters away because of the dark? A. It is really very difficult to recognize person from that distance. Q. At the distance of 70 meters, because of darkness, in an open field, you have likewise difficulties to recognize a person? A. It is really very difficult to recognize."[25] (Emphasis supplied). Clearly, there was no other source of light outside of the shanty except for the one coming from the flashlight. Except for this light, Mendoza admitted that the surroundings of the shanty were "dark". Although it has been held in a line of cases that illumination produced by a flashlight is sufficient to permit identification of a person,[26] the flashlight in such cases is held by the witness and not by the accused.[27] This difference is significant because in the cases where it is the witness carrying the flashlight, he is able to point the light at the assailants and focus the light on their faces, thus identifying them. In the present case, where the flashlight was held by a companion of the assailants, the stream of light from the flashlight was most probably focused not on the faces of the assailants but either on the ground to light the way of the assailants, or on the shanty, or alternately on both.
	GR No. 135936 2001-09-19	PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR MENDOZA, J.
However, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated as the prosecution failed to prove that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a span of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[46]
	GR No. 135936 2001-09-19	PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR MENDOZA, J.
Based on the foregoing considerations, accused-appellant is guilty of murder and should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in line with the prevailing doctrine and no proof is needed since it is intended as indemnity for the death of the victim.[47] However, the award of P14,500.00 as actual damages should be reduced to P10,500.00 considering that only the latter amount, which covers funeral and burial expenses, is duly supported by receipts. The balance of P4,000.00 must be deleted as only a handwritten list of alleged expenses during the victim's wake was presented. In addition, consistent with this Court's rulings,[48] accused-appellant should be ordered to pay the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
	GR No. 132354 2001-09-13	PEOPLE v. DEOMEDES IGLESIA MENDOZA, J.
With respect to the items of damages awarded by the trial court, we find the award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victim to be in accord with recent rulings of this Court.[34] However, we find the amount of P30,000.00 awarded as nominal damages to be excessive and should therefore be reduced. The amount of P15,000.00 would be appropriate considering that the heirs of the victim actually incurred hospital and funeral expenses as a result of the victim's death, although the exact amount thereof has not been adequately shown.[35] The amount of moral damages awarded should likewise be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with the current case law.[36]
	GR No. 134565 2001-08-09	PEOPLE v. EX-KGD. LUDIVINO MIANA MENDOZA, J.
Accused-appellants' defense is alibi. The rule is that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[25] In addition, accused-appellants were within a few meters from where the victim was assaulted, thus negating the requirement that for alibi to be successfully invoked, it must be impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[26]
	GR No. 125698 2001-07-19	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO HAPA Y EBASCO PARDO, J.
We affirm the trial court's award of civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as death indemnity.[49]
	GR No. 134779 2001-07-06	PEOPLE v. HERSON FLORAGUE Y ESTALILLA MENDOZA, J.
As regards the question of damages, however, we find the trial court's award of P400,000.00 as indemnity, in accordance with our rulings[50] on this question, to be excessive. Accused-appellant should only be made to pay the amount of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P50,000.00 for moral damages.

PEOPLE v. WILSON RONAS