This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-01-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Therefore, without proof of the physical existence of the revolver and knife, the Court must rule that accused Diego has not convincingly shown a legal justification for his act of firing. There was nothing to imperil the life of Diego and Galvez. There was no unlawful aggression by the Vinculados, even assuming that there was an altercation for the possession of the cameras, and even assuming that the Vinculados clenched their fists in anger, with Miguel saying "A ganoon ba. Kung gusto mo Mayor ay sasapakin kita." Anger is not equivalent to unlawful aggression, whether on the part of Galvez or on the part of the Vinculados. As defined by the Supreme Court, "Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent: it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture" (People v. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601, 613). This being the case, there is no need for the Court to ascertain if Diego mistook the SONY AC power adaptor as a revolver when he said that Alvin was pulling something out of the black bag, or if he fired just to ingratiate himself into the favors of the mayor, or if his act of firing was the reflex action of a man who is trigger happy.[5] In both self-defense and defense of a stranger, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude but, most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor.[6] | |||||
|
2001-11-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 - age at time of death) x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses)][59] In this case, the Court notes that the victim was 27 years old at the time of his death and his mother testified that as a driver of the Tamaraw FX taxi, he was earning P650.00 a day.[60] Hence, the damages payable for the loss of the victim's earning capacity is computed thus: Gross Annual Earnings = P650 x 261 working days in a year = P169,650.00 Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80-27) x [P169,650.00 - P84,825.00] = 35.33 x 84,825.00 = P2,996,867.20 Based on the foregoing computation, the award of the trial court with regard to lost income is thus modified accordingly. | |||||
|
2001-06-19 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Net earning capacity = [2/3 x (80 - age at time of death) x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses)][39] | |||||