Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDWIN R. DECENA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AM NO. RTJ-04-1840 2007-08-02	LAGCAO v. JUDGE IRENEO LEE GAKO CORONA, J.
On June 30, 1999, during the period of deferment of the demolition order, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed Ordinance No. 1772 entitled "An Ordinance Further Amending Ordinance No. 1656 as amended by Ordinance No. 1684 otherwise known as the 1996 Revised Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cebu, by Incorporating therein a New District called Socialized Housing Sites." This ordinance identified subject lot no. 1029 as included in the "Socialized Housing Sites" pursuant to RA 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.[7] Subsequently, Ordinance No. 1843 was approved on August 2, 2000 authorizing the expropriation of the lot.[8]
	GR No. 155746 2004-10-13	DIOSDADO LAGCAO v. JUDGE GENEROSA G. LABRA CORONA, J.
However, when the demolition order was about to be implemented, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters[4] to the MTCC, requesting the deferment of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters. Acting on the mayor's request, the MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from February 22, 1999. Unfortunately for petitioners, during the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Cebu City passed a resolution which identified Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279.[5] Then, on June 30, 1999, the SP of Cebu City passed Ordinance No. 1772[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identified sites for socialized housing. On July, 19, 2000, Ordinance No. 1843[7] was enacted by the SP of Cebu City authorizing the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of Lot 1029 which was registered in the name of petitioners. The intended acquisition was to be used for the benefit of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants thereof. For this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount of P6,881,600 for the payment of the subject lot. This ordinance was approved by Mayor Garcia on August 2, 2000.
	GR No. 125908 2002-09-05	PEOPLE v. VICTOR BALILI Y LIBOT QUISUMBING, J.
reclusion perpetua is in accord with the amendments introduced by R.A. 7659, the prevailing law on rape at the time of its commission. On the matter of damages, the trial court awarded P30,000 as indemnity. Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, however, modification is in order: civil indemnity awarded to the victim should be increased to P50,000.[25] In addition, the victim is
	GR Nos. 133586-603 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court notes that while the court a quo awarded indemnity ex delicto, which current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00[46] for the offenses committed, no moral damages have been awarded. It must be stressed in this regard that civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[47] Pursuant to controlling case law, the award of P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[48] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00[49] are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[50] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[51]
	GR Nos. 137106-07 2001-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court notes that the court a quo neither awarded any indemnity ex delicto, which current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00,[44] nor moral damages on account of the rape. It must be stressed in this regard that civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[45] Pursuant to controlling case law, the award of P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[46] Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[47] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[48]
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court notes that the court a quo, while awarding P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto did not award moral damages. Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[60] Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[61] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[62]