Lawyerly

GR No. 203087

2015-11-23

PERALTA, J.

Hence, based on the above-mentioned ratiocinations, the main consideration in the determination of the amount of damages to be awarded is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.[57] In this case, since the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the proper civil indemnity should only be P50,000.00.[58]

GR No. 194582

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. ALLAN NIEGAS Y FALLORE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, after the incident, accused-appellant Niegas did not report what happened to the authorities or even try to contact Augusto to explain his alleged non-participation in the incident. Instead, he went home to his province and it took the authorities one year to apprehend him. Accused-appellant Niegas's excuse that he lost his wallet and therefore cannot contact Augusto is absurd, as it is inconceivable for someone's personal driver for at least half a year to simply forget the address of his employer or to fail to communicate with the latter in some way and seek permission to return to the province if he is indeed innocent. We have held on several occasions that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion.[35]

GR No. 201620

2013-03-06

RAMONCITA O. SENADOR v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

In light of current jurisprudence,[25] the Court, however, finds the award of exemplary damages excessive. Art. 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. Nevertheless, "exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions."[26] On this basis, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 100,000 is reduced to PhP 30,000.

GR No. 187048

2013-01-23

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN PETELUNA

PEREZ, J.

The civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals is in order.[40] There is, however, a need to increase the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 to conform to existing jurisprudence.[41] In addition, the victim's heirs shall be entitled to moral damages even in the absence of proof that they suffered mentally and emotionally[42] considering that "[a] violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family."[43] A 6% interest on all the monetary awards for damages to be reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid shall likewise be imposed.[44]

GR No. 188612

2012-07-30

PEOPLE v. DIOSDADO CAMAT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In all, the lower courts correctly appreciated appellant Camat's unexplained departure against him. Flight in criminal law is the evading of the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself in order to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings.[41] In one case, this Court had stated that it is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion.[42]

GR No. 197807

2012-04-16

PEOPLE v. CECILIA LAGMAN Y PIRING

VELASCO JR., J.

People v. Combate[36] reiterated the rule on civil indemnity and 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 of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. In People v. Tubongbanua, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People, People v. Buban, People v. Guevarra, and People v. Regalario. Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

GR No. 195239

2012-03-07

PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA

VELASCO JR., J.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03489 is hereby AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION in that the award of moral damages is increased to PhP 75,000 and exemplary damages to PhP 30,000. The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.[40] Costs against accused-appellant.

GR No. 181701

2012-01-18

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO DOLLENDO

PEREZ, J.

Furthermore, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi, more so when such is credible and categorical,[49] as it is in this case. Positive identification by witnesses, absent any ill motive on their part, likewise prevails over the defense of denial.[50]

GR No. 195665

2011-09-14

PEOPLE v. DAVID MANINGDING

VELASCO JR., J.

Corollarily, in People v. Combate, We ruled that "when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the Court has ruled that the proper amounts should be PhP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000.00 as exemplary damages."[45]

GR No. 189579

2011-09-12

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ORJE Y BORCE

VELASCO JR., J.

The Court affirms the award of PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 75,000 as moral damages. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory on the finding that rape was committed, while moral damages are assessable upon such finding without need of proof.[30] The presence of aggravating circumstance entitles the offended party to exemplary damages. Thus, We also affirm the award for exemplary damages, but, pursuant to established jurisprudence, in the amount of PhP 30,000,[31] up from the PhP 25,000 fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.

GR No. 182551

2011-07-27

PEOPLE v. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Thus, we affirm the Court of Appeals' award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The award of exemplary damages is, however, increased to P30,000.00 in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. As held in People v. Combate,[73] when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the proper amounts that should be awarded are P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

GR No. 194379

2011-06-01

PEOPLE v. FELICIANO 'SAYSOT' CIAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Finally, although the CA was correct in awarding PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, the award of moral damages should be increased to PhP 75,000. There should also be an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[42]

GR No. 189981

2011-03-09

PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO

VELASCO JR., J.

We have held time and again that "the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality."[12] As We have reiterated in the recent People v. Combate, where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses.[13] This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial.[14] Accordingly, the trial court, or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.

GR No. 194259

2011-03-06

PEOPLE v. JIMMY ALVERIO

VELASCO JR., J.

As to the award of damages, the CA was correct in awarding PhP 50,000 as moral damages without need of proof. However, in line with current jurisprudence,[37] an additional award of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages should likewise be given, as well as interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of judgment until fully paid.

GR No. 188705

2011-03-02

PEOPLE v. FEDERICO LUCERO

VELASCO JR., J.

In line with current jurisprudence,[45] We reduce the award of civil indemnity to PhP 75,000 and maintain the award of PhP 75,000 as moral damages, but increase the award of exemplary damages to PhP 30,000. The award of temperate damages is proper, following Art. 2224 of the Civil Code, which states, "Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty."

	GR No. 203087 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ZABALA y BALADA PERALTA, J.
Hence, based on the above-mentioned ratiocinations, the main consideration in the determination of the amount of damages to be awarded is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.[57] In this case, since the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the proper civil indemnity should only be P50,000.00.[58]
	GR No. 194582 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. ALLAN NIEGAS Y FALLORE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, after the incident, accused-appellant Niegas did not report what happened to the authorities or even try to contact Augusto to explain his alleged non-participation in the incident. Instead, he went home to his province and it took the authorities one year to apprehend him. Accused-appellant Niegas's excuse that he lost his wallet and therefore cannot contact Augusto is absurd, as it is inconceivable for someone's personal driver for at least half a year to simply forget the address of his employer or to fail to communicate with the latter in some way and seek permission to return to the province if he is indeed innocent. We have held on several occasions that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion.[35]
	GR No. 201620 2013-03-06	RAMONCITA O. SENADOR v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
In light of current jurisprudence,[25] the Court, however, finds the award of exemplary damages excessive. Art. 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. Nevertheless, "exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions."[26] On this basis, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 100,000 is reduced to PhP 30,000.
	GR No. 187048 2013-01-23	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN PETELUNA PEREZ, J.
The civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals is in order.[40] There is, however, a need to increase the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 to conform to existing jurisprudence.[41] In addition, the victim's heirs shall be entitled to moral damages even in the absence of proof that they suffered mentally and emotionally[42] considering that "[a] violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family."[43] A 6% interest on all the monetary awards for damages to be reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid shall likewise be imposed.[44]
	GR No. 188612 2012-07-30	PEOPLE v. DIOSDADO CAMAT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In all, the lower courts correctly appreciated appellant Camat's unexplained departure against him. Flight in criminal law is the evading of the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself in order to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings.[41] In one case, this Court had stated that it is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion.[42]
	GR No. 197807 2012-04-16	PEOPLE v. CECILIA LAGMAN Y PIRING VELASCO JR., J.
People v. Combate[36] reiterated the rule on civil indemnity and 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 of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. In People v. Tubongbanua, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People, People v. Buban, People v. Guevarra, and People v. Regalario. Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
	GR No. 195239 2012-03-07	PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA VELASCO JR., J.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03489 is hereby AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION in that the award of moral damages is increased to PhP 75,000 and exemplary damages to PhP 30,000. The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.[40] Costs against accused-appellant.
	GR No. 181701 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO DOLLENDO PEREZ, J.
Furthermore, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi, more so when such is credible and categorical,[49] as it is in this case. Positive identification by witnesses, absent any ill motive on their part, likewise prevails over the defense of denial.[50]
	GR No. 195665 2011-09-14	PEOPLE v. DAVID MANINGDING VELASCO JR., J.
Corollarily, in People v. Combate, We ruled that "when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the Court has ruled that the proper amounts should be PhP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000.00 as exemplary damages."[45]
	GR No. 189579 2011-09-12	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ORJE Y BORCE VELASCO JR., J.
The Court affirms the award of PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 75,000 as moral damages. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory on the finding that rape was committed, while moral damages are assessable upon such finding without need of proof.[30] The presence of aggravating circumstance entitles the offended party to exemplary damages. Thus, We also affirm the award for exemplary damages, but, pursuant to established jurisprudence, in the amount of PhP 30,000,[31] up from the PhP 25,000 fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
	GR No. 182551 2011-07-27	PEOPLE v. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Thus, we affirm the Court of Appeals' award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The award of exemplary damages is, however, increased to P30,000.00 in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. As held in People v. Combate,[73] when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the proper amounts that should be awarded are P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
	GR No. 194379 2011-06-01	PEOPLE v. FELICIANO 'SAYSOT' CIAS VELASCO JR., J.
Finally, although the CA was correct in awarding PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, the award of moral damages should be increased to PhP 75,000. There should also be an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[42]
	GR No. 189981 2011-03-09	PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO VELASCO JR., J.
We have held time and again that "the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality."[12] As We have reiterated in the recent People v. Combate, where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses.[13] This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial.[14] Accordingly, the trial court, or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.
	GR No. 194259 2011-03-06	PEOPLE v. JIMMY ALVERIO VELASCO JR., J.
As to the award of damages, the CA was correct in awarding PhP 50,000 as moral damages without need of proof. However, in line with current jurisprudence,[37] an additional award of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages should likewise be given, as well as interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of judgment until fully paid.
	GR No. 188705 2011-03-02	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO LUCERO VELASCO JR., J.
In line with current jurisprudence,[45] We reduce the award of civil indemnity to PhP 75,000 and maintain the award of PhP 75,000 as moral damages, but increase the award of exemplary damages to PhP 30,000. The award of temperate damages is proper, following Art. 2224 of the Civil Code, which states, "Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty."

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE