This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider that under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the accused are also jointly and severally liable for the loss of the earning capacity of Biag and such indemnity should be paid to his heirs.[56] In People v. Jadap,[57] this Court said: As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. In this case, no documentary evidence was presented to prove the claim of the victim's heirs for damages by reason of loss of earning capacity. However, the victim's father testified that at the time of his son's death, he was only 20 years old and was working as a mason with a monthly income of P3,000.00. We find the father's testimony sufficient to justify the award of damages for loss of earning capacity.[58] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In addition, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is in order pursuant to Articles 2217 and 2219 paragraph (1) of the Civil Code. Moral damages which include physical suffering and mental anguish, may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries and the victim's death as in this case.[33] The mother of the victim testified on these damages.[34] Moreover, the award of moral damages is in accordance with our recent ruling.[35] | |||||
|
2002-02-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Moreover, as we have time and again held, discrepancies between the statement of an affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand will not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. Affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because they are oftentimes not in such a state as to afford a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired.[34] In addition, an extrajudicial statement is generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement, hence omission and misunderstanding by the writer are not infrequent.[35] | |||||
|
2000-10-30 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| such as when the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage, and the amount claimed is reasonable. In People v. Verde,[44] where the victim was also a tricycle driver, we awarded unearned income based solely on the testimony of the victim's wife that her husband had an average daily income of P200.00. Thus, award of unearned income based on the testimony of Luzviminda Pascua is proper. The formula[45]for unearned income is as follows: Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income (G.A.I.) less | |||||
|
2000-10-18 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| court declarations.[18] The trial court, therefore, did not err in believing Mary Jane's account of the sexual ordeal she suffered at the hands of accused-appellant. Well settled is the rule that credibility of witnesses is the domain of the trial court which has observed the deportment of the | |||||