This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-10-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The award of moral damages by the CA should be increased from P50,000.00 to P100,000.00.[26] As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[27] | |||||
|
2002-12-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[17] Finally, the award of actual damages in the amount of P10,000.00 does not appear to have been substantiated. Only those expenses which are duly proven, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim, will be | |||||
|
2002-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[44] WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102, finding accused-appellants Niel Piedad y Consolacion and Lito Garcia y Francisco, guilty of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[31] Nevertheless, moral damages are not meant to enrich an injured party. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the award should be reduced to P50,000.00.[32] Likewise, the P120,000.00 civil indemnity for the death of the victim should be reduced to P50,000.00 per current case law.[33] The award of P30,000.00 representing hospitalization and funeral expenses should also be reduced to P13,500.00,[34] considering that only said amount is supported by receipts or which appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| receipts.[24] The award of moral damages, however, should be increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, pursuant to the Court's current policy.[25] In People v. Cabote,[26] we held that moral damages may be awarded in murder cases despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victims' heirs. A violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. With or without proof, this fact can never be denied; since it is undisputed, it must be considered proved. The Court further awards exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00, inasmuch as the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. In People v. Catubig,[27] we emphasized that insofar as the civil | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. Evidence is assessed in terms of quality and not quantity. Therefore, it is not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of the lone witness. For although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence, preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number and conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a single witness.[12] Accused-appellant invokes peripheral issues to impeach Orbino's credibility, such as his choice of route. Specifically, the defense argues that it was improbable for Orbino to be on Tilapia Street because the most accessible and convenient route from his residence to the | |||||