Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELISEO TIO Y TORCUATO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 152346 2005-11-25	ISAIAS F. FABRIGAS v. SAN FRANCISCO DEL MONTE TINGA, J.
Petitioners theorize that Contract to Sell No. 2482-V should remain valid and subsisting because the notice of cancellation sent by Del Monte did not observe the requisites under Section 3 of R.A. 6552.[15] According to petitioners, since respondent did not send a notarial notice informing them of the cancellation or rescission of Contract to Sell No. 2482-V and also did not pay them the cash surrender value of the payments on the property, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that respondent correctly applied the automatic rescission clause of Contract to Sell No. 2482-V. Petitioners also cite Section 7[16] of said law to bolster their theory that the automatic rescission clause in Contract to Sell No. 2482-V is invalid for being contrary to law and public policy.
	GR No. 152346 2005-11-25	ISAIAS F. FABRIGAS v. SAN FRANCISCO DEL MONTE TINGA, J.
Petitioners theorize that Contract to Sell No. 2482-V should remain valid and subsisting because the notice of cancellation sent by Del Monte did not observe the requisites under Section 3 of R.A. 6552.[15] According to petitioners, since respondent did not send a notarial notice informing them of the cancellation or rescission of Contract to Sell No. 2482-V and also did not pay them the cash surrender value of the payments on the property, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that respondent correctly applied the automatic rescission clause of Contract to Sell No. 2482-V. Petitioners also cite Section 7[16] of said law to bolster their theory that the automatic rescission clause in Contract to Sell No. 2482-V is invalid for being contrary to law and public policy.
	GR No. 152346 2005-11-25	ISAIAS F. FABRIGAS v. SAN FRANCISCO DEL MONTE TINGA, J.
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Del Monte was "well within its right to cancel the contract by express grant of paragraph 7 without the need of notifying [petitioners],[17]" instead of applying the pertinent provisions of R.A. 6552. Petitioners' contention that none of Del Monte's demand letters constituted a valid rescission of Contract to Sell No. 2482-V is correct.
	GR NO. 149259 2005-10-20	PEOPLE v. JUANITO P. QUIROL AZCUNA, J.
Appellants' attack on the credibility of Wilson by claiming it was unnatural for Wilson not to help the victims who were supposedly his friends is without basis. Whether he could have helped them but did not is not an issue that is determinative of the veracity of the testimony as not every witness to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to expectation.[8] The fact of the matter is that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or frightful experience.[9] All things considered, it is more reasonable to expect that rather than leave his hiding place and risk being seen, the witness would stay put and wait until after the perpetrators of the crime had left, which is exactly what he did.[10] Similarly, while it may have been unnecessary for Mario to hold Roel, that does not mean that it did not occur. And, contrary to the contention of appellants, there was no testimony that Mario was still holding Roel when he was shot and, therefore, risked being accidentally hit.[11]
	GR No. 138303 2001-11-26	PEOPLE v. ELROSWELL MANZANO Y BREBONERA PARDO, J.
We agree with the Solicitor General that it was proper to award compensation to the heirs of the victim for loss of earning capacity, pursuant to Article 2206 of the Civil Code. Although the prosecution did not present documentary evidence to support this claim, testimonial evidence is sufficient to establish a basis for which the court can make a fair and reasonable estimate of damages for loss of earning capacity.[54] The unrebutted testimony of Angelita Kasilag is sufficient basis for the award. At the time of his death, Ernesto, thirty-three years old, was earning an average of P150.00 a day buying and selling bottles and junk materials.[55] If not for his untimely death, he would have earned more for his family. The additional compensation for loss of earning capacity would be computed based on the following formula:[56]