This case has been cited 25 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Lastly, the lower courts limited the civil liability to civil indemnity of P50,000.00. The limitation was a plain error that we must correct. Moral damages and civil indemnity are always granted in homicide, it being assumed by the law that the loss of human life absolutely brings moral and spiritual losses as well as a definite loss. Moral damages and civil indemnity require neither pleading nor evidence simply because death through crime always occasions moral sufferings on the part of the victim's heirs.[17] As the Court said in People v. Panad:[18] | |||||
|
2014-09-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Anent the civil liability, the RTC granted P250,000.00 without specifying the amounts corresponding to actual and moral damages, as well as to the civil indemnity for the death of Vincent. The CA affirmed the grant. Both lower courts thereby erred on a matter of law. Actual and moral damages are different in nature and purpose. To start with, different laws govern their grant, with the amounts allowed as actual damages being dependent on proof of the loss to a degree of certainty, while the amounts allowed as moral damages being discretionary on the part of the court. Secondly, actual damages address the actual losses caused by the crime to the heirs of the victim; moral damages assuage the spiritual and emotional sufferings of the heirs of the victim of the crime. On the civil indemnity for death, law and jurisprudence have fixed the value to compensate for the loss of human life. Thirdly, actual damages may not be granted without evidence of actual loss; moral damages and death indemnity are always granted in homicide, it being assumed by the law that the loss of human life absolutely brings moral and spiritual losses as well as a definite loss. Moral damages and death indemnity require neither pleading nor evidence simply because death through crime always occasions moral sufferings on the part of the victim's heirs.[16] As the Court aptly said in one case,[17] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| xxx 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.[30] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| xxx 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.[34] | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| xxx 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.[42] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moral damages are also in order. Even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering, it has been recognized that the loss of a loved one to a violent death brings emotional pain and anguish,[31] more so in this case where two young children were brutally killed while their mother was away. The award of PhP75,000.00 is proper pursuant to established jurisprudence holding that where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to RA 9346, the award of moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.[32] | |||||
|
2009-02-27 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As to the award of additional damages, the CA is correct in ordering the appellants to pay the sum of P50,000.00, as moral damages, to the heirs of each of the victims. We held in People v. Panado:[25] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Likewise, moral damages in the amount of P50,000 should be awarded even in the absence of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering by the victim's heirs. Although appellant's two children sided with him in his defense, this did not negate the fact that the family suffered emotional pain brought about by the death of their mother.[36] We also award them exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000 considering that the qualifying circumstance of relationship is present, this being a case of parricide.[37] | |||||
|
2008-06-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Unlike in the crime of rape, we grant moral damages in murder or homicide only when the heirs of the victim have alleged and proved mental suffering. However, 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 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, x x x 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 allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[34] x x x | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| of the victim's heirs. 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.[74] We shall also award in favor of the heirs of Demetrio Jr. exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 in view of the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery.[75] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Net Earning Capacity = remaining life expectancy [2/3 (80-age at death)] x Gross Annual Income (GAI) Living Expenses (50% of GAI) Using the formula, the victim's remaining life expectancy is 28.66 years.[39] According to the certification[40] given by his employer, his income as seaman was US$724 monthly or a total of US$8,688 annually. The defense did not contest this amount. Deducting 50% as reasonable living expenses,[41] this amounts to US$4,344 or US$124,499 for 28.66 years (28.66 x US$4,344). Adopting the exchange rate used by the trial court in its judgment (P25 = US$1), the total amount is P3,112,476 for lost earnings. | |||||
|
2003-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in cases involving murder or homicide, moral damages can be awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the victim.[16] 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.[17] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| We sustain the court's award of moral damages but at a reduced rate of P50,000, consistent with recent jurisprudence. In cases of violent death, moral damages is awarded even in the absence of proof because an untimely and violent death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[34] In addition, the amount of P50,000[35] as indemnity for the death of Joseph should be awarded to his heirs. | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| As to Merle Castro, it is unfortunate that the TSNs of her testimony in the cases against Caraig were irretrievably lost and could not anymore be reproduced, and her testimony could not be retaken. Moreover, the decision of the trial court did not mention of a testimony on her moral suffering. What remained in the records is the TSN of her testimony during the trial of Laomoc, where she declared that she experienced "difficulties in life" as a consequence of Melencio's death and that she and her children missed him so much. However, this testimony was not adopted in the cases against Caraig; hence, it cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of determining the civil liabilities of Caraig. Nevertheless, conformably with People v. Carillo,[49] People v. Panela,[50] and People v. Panado,[51] where we reconsidered our policy on moral damages and held that an award therefor is mandatory and does not require allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, we uphold the award of moral damages in favor of Melencio's heirs even granting that there is no allegation and proof of their emotional suffering. We reiterate what we said in People v. Panado:Unlike in the crime of rape, we grant moral damages in murder or homicide only when the heirs of the victim have alleged and proved mental suffering. However, 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. Verily Hilda and her son Louie Gee would forever carry the emotional wounds of the vicious killing of a husband and a father. With or without proof, this fact can never be denied; since it is undisputed, it must be considered proved.[52] | |||||
|
2002-11-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| present any of the heirs of Virginia to prove that because of her death they suffered mental anguish, anxiety and similar injury, however, the Court takes judicial notice that 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, and that it is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes a victim of a violent death or brutal killing; for such violent killing not only steals from the family of the victim her precious life but also deprives them forever of the love, affection and support.[23] IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of homicide, defined and penalized by Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and there being no modifying | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| IN VIEW WHEREOF, the impugned decision is MODIFIED. The accused-appellant is found guilty of three (3) counts of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3) sentences of reclusion perpetua and to pay for each count P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages.[32] He is also found guilty of one (1) count of frustrated murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to fourteen (14) years and ten (10) months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and to pay the civil indemnity of P30,000.00.[33] He is also found guilty of three (3) counts of attempted murder and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional medium as minimum, to eight (8) years, two (2) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor medium as maximum, and to pay the civil indemnity of | |||||
|
2001-11-26 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We find the award of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as death indemnity proper. However, we can not sustain the award of thirty thousand seven hundred pesos (P30,700.00), as actual damages. The Court can only grant such amount for expenses if proper receipts support them.[60] In People v. Uldarico Panado,[61] the Court held that the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) may be awarded to the heirs of the victim as moral damages without need of specific proof of moral suffering.[62] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Anent the damages, the trial court was correct in ordering the accused to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. In accord with prevailing jurisprudence, however, we increase the award of moral damages from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00, despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victims' heirs. We ruled in People v. Panado,[17] also a murder case, viz:"Current jurisprudence has set moral damages at P50,000.00. Nonetheless, we deem it proper to rethink our policy on moral damages. | |||||
|
2001-09-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Motive is unnecessary to impute a crime on the accused if the evidence on identification is convincing. But where the proof concerning the identification of the accused is unclear, as in this case, then proof of motive is of paramount necessity.[19] While generally the motive of the accused is immaterial and does not have to be proved, proof of the same becomes relevant and essential when the identity of the assailant is in question.[20] In the instant case, not only was the identification of the accused-appellant unconvincing, the prosecution miserably failed to ascribe motive to him. | |||||
|
2001-08-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For funeral and burial expenses, the award of P67,805.00 ought to be reduced. The records reveal that in this connection, the prosecution was able to present a receipt[35] for P9,000.00, a certification[36] for P7,000.00 and P25,805.00, or a total of P41,805.00 only. Pursuant to current jurisprudence,[37] we can only award what has been duly proved in this case, by documentary evidence. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is also in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[38] Lastly, pursuant to the ruling in People vs. Uldarico Panado,[39] the amount of P50,000.00 should also be awarded to the heirs of Edmundo Milan as moral damages for the brutal slaying of the victim. | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In the face of the prosecution's mounting evidence, accused-appellant invokes alibi for his defense. But positive identification, if categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence not worthy of weight in law.[16] For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that accused-appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed but it must likewise be demonstrated that he was far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[17] The lower court took judicial notice of the fact that a trip from Isabela to Dagupan City takes a mere eight (8) to nine (9) hours and therefore it was not impossible for accused-appellant to have been in Dagupan City on the night in question and returned to Isabela immediately after. For this reason, the defense of alibi must fall. | |||||