This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The amount of damages recoverable for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased is based on two factors: 1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed; and 2) the rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs of the deceased should be fixed. The first factor is based on the formula (2/3 x 80 - age of the deceased at the time of his death = life expectancy) which is adopted from the American Expectancy Table of Mortality.[60] Net income is computed by deducting from the amount of the victim's gross income the amount of his living expenses. As there is no proof of Biag's living expenses, the net income is estimated to be 50% of the gross annual income.[61] Thus, the loss of earning capacity of the deceased is computed as follows: Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x [gross annual income - living expenses][62] | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For conviction of an accused in criminal cases, it is enough that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it. Production of the weapon used in committing the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of that burden.[18] It is not vital to the cause of the prosecution,[19] especially where other evidence is available to support sufficiently the charges. As to the presentation of witnesses, the question of which witness to present and when to present him is up to the prosecution, leaving the court thereafter to make the judgment call.[20] In the instant case, the trial court depended on the other evidence to determine the guilt of the accused, especially the eyewitness accounts of Lito Camara, Jr., and Leovilgildo Cartalla. While it is true that the trial court characterized their testimonies as "not too clear on what transpired,"[21] the transcripts nonetheless show that the vagueness refers only to minor or inconsequential details. What is vital is that both eyewitnesses categorically declared that they saw appellant shoot at the occupants of the car and that after appellant ran off, they saw the victims either dead or dying. It is settled that discrepancies in minor details tend to bolster the credibility of witnesses and indicate veracity rather than prevarication, as they erase any suspicion that the witnesses have been coached and the testimony rehearsed.[22] | |||||
|
2000-12-01 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Net income is computed by deducting from the amount of the gross income of the victim the amount of his living expenses. As there is no proof of the living expenses of the deceased, the net income is estimated to be 50% of the gross annual income.[47] In the case at bar, the victim Alexander Reyes, was earning from his glove factory the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) per week, or Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) per month.[48] His gross annual income therefore is Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P480,000.00), 50% of which is Two Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P240,000.00). Since there is no proof or showing of the living expenses of the deceased, his net income is Two Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P240,000.00) per year. Applying the formula, his loss of earnings amounts to Six Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos and Eighty Centavos (P6,880,000.80) since | |||||