This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As to the penalties imposed and damages awarded, the CA correctly affirmed the pronouncement that Mercado was ineligible for parole, and in deleting the award of exemplary damages. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346[31] provides that "[p]erson convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended." Exemplary damages, on the other hand, may be granted under Article 2230 of the Civil Code when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance.[32] Although there are instances when it may be granted despite the absence of any aggravating circumstance,[33] the circumstances attending the present case fail to warrant an award. | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The award of nominal damages must be deleted and replaced with temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[30] Nominal damages are proper when there is no proof of actual damages; and when it is granted, it is as if there was in fact no damage at all.[31] Temperate damages, on the other hand, are awarded when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.[32] There is no doubt that pecuniary expenses were incurred in the funeral and burial of Catriz and the award of temperate damages shall answer for the same.[33] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It bears emphasizing that self-defense, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense for it is easy to fabricate. Thus, it must be proven by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.[36] In order for self- defense to be appreciated, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[37] | |||||