This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-04-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In the face of the positive identification of all the four accused, it did not matter whether only one or two of them had actually fired the fatal shots. Their actions indicated that a conspiracy existed among them. Indeed, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[36] Direct proof of a previous agreement among the accused to commit the crime is not necessary,[37] for conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused at the time of their commission of the crime that evinces a common understanding among them on perpetrating the crime.[38] Thus, the concerted acts of the four manifested their agreement to kill Haide, resulting in each of them being guilty of the crime regardless of whether he actually fired at the victim or not. It is axiomatic that once conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all;[39] and that all the conspirators are then liable as co-principals.[40] | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court finds the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Crispin Domanico proper without any need of proof other than the fact of death.[27] However, the award of P30,000.00 as moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00 in line with the controlling case law.[28] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[23] Petitioner testified that, at the time of the incident, he was sleeping in his house which was located in the same barangay. He even testified that his house is only around 200 meters from Tuazon's house.[24] His alibi is supported only by the testimony of his wife.[25] He failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time the theft happened. Moreover, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses Blanquisco and Raymundo. Finally, there is a question as to the proper penalty to be imposed on petitioner. The trial court refused to base the penalty on the claim of private complainant that value of the things stolen amounted to P100,000.00 since this was merely a sweeping assessment | |||||
|
2002-07-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| or proof. Accordingly, the indemnity awarded by the trial court is reduced from P60,000.00 to P50,000.00. The heirs of the victim are entitled to moral damages pursuant to paragraph (3) of Article 2206 in relation to Article 2217. The award by the trial court of moral damages is, however, increased from P10,000.00 to 50,000.00[19]considering the pain and anguish suffered by the victim's heirs brought about by the untimely demise of Vicente Alarcon. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 56, in Criminal Case No. 1834 finding George Asaldo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the | |||||
|
2002-07-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In addition to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity which was properly awarded by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 9359, the heirs of Elsa Rodriguez are entitled to another P50,000.00 as moral damages which needs no proof since the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of murder is sufficient justification for said award.[29] The heirs of the deceased are likewise entitled to the amount of P29,250.00 representing actual damages[30] based on the agreement of the parties.[31] | |||||
|
2002-07-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As to accused-appellant's civil liability, the amount of P50,000.00, as indemnity ex delicto is affirmed. The moral damages awarded by the trial court in the amount of P20,000.00 should, however, be increased to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[17] | |||||