Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 185383 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA Y CHAVEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Furthermore, the situation wherein the judge rendering the decision in a case was not the same judge who heard the case and received evidence from the parties is not new or unique. In People v. Paling,[24] the Court upheld the validity of such a decision, ratiocinating that:The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion. Citing People v. Competente, this Court held in People v. Alfredo:
	GR No. 191256 2013-09-18	PEOPLE v. GARY ALINAO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court of Appeals deleted the trial court's award of exemplary damages on the ground that no aggravating circumstance was established in evidence.[51] This Court, however, has ruled that an award of exemplary damages is justified if an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, accompanies the crime.[52] In the case at bar, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was duly alleged in the Information and proved during the trial. Therefore, in line with current jurisprudence,[53] we reinstate the trial court's award of the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to heirs of the victim, Antonio Ardet.
	GR No. 190340 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Anent the award of damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses for litigation; and, (6) interest, in proper cases."[37] Hence, the Court finds as proper the RTC's awards to the heirs of Abacco, as affirmed by the CA, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.[38] However, the P25,000.00 exemplary damages awarded by the CA must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[39] Also, as the prosecution was able to submit in evidence receipts representing the expenses incurred in connection with Abacco's burial,[40] actual damages in the amount of P40,000.00 must likewise be awarded. "In addition and in conformity with current policy [the Court] also impose[s] on all the monetary awards for damages interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid."[41]
	GR No. 197807 2012-04-16	PEOPLE v. CECILIA LAGMAN Y PIRING VELASCO JR., J.
On the other allegation of accused-appellant, We have earlier held that the fact that the judge who rendered judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses does not adversely affect the validity of conviction.[26] That the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion.[27]