This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We reiterate here that said civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion." (Emphasis supplied) The trial court likewise erred in awarding P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Under Article 2231 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[17] In this case, no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. Q-92-29833, for the attempted homicide of Edgar Loveres, appellants are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay, jointly and severally, to the victim, Edgar Loveres, moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00. The award of exemplary damages is deleted, absent any finding of one or more aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.[86] | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Silvestre[55] and People v. Verde,[56] we held that the absence of documentary evidence to support the prosecution's claim for damages for loss of earning capacity of the deceased does not preclude recovery of said damages. There, we awarded damages for loss of earning capacity computed on the basis of the testimonies of the victim's wives. This was reiterated in People v. Dizon,[57] where we held that:"As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. In People vs. Verde (G. R. No. 119077, February 10, 1999), the non-presentation of documentary evidence to support the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity did not prevent this Court from awarding said damages. The testimony of the victim's wife as to the earning capacity of her murdered husband, who was then 48 years old and was earning P200.00 a day as a tricycle driver, sufficed to establish the basis for such an award. x x x As in People vs. Verde, the Court is inclined to grant the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity despite the absence of documentary evidence." (Underscoring ours) In the case at bar, however, the award for compensatory damages should be calculated as follows: | |||||
|
2000-04-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, this court notes that the trial court failed to award damages for loss of earning capacity despite the testimony of Leticia Boteja to this effect. In People v. Dizon[6] this Court discussed the requisites for such award- | |||||
|
2000-03-09 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| However, the heirs are entitled to damages for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased Ramil Sabturani. The fact that the prosecution did not present documentary evidence to support its claim for damages for loss of earning capacity of the deceased does not preclude recovery of said damages.[73] The testimony of the victim's wife, Amy Sabturani, as to the earning capacity of her husband sufficiently establishes the basis for making such an award. It was established that Ramil Sabturani was 24 years old at the time of his death in 1994. His average weekly income was P2,500.00.[74] Hence, in accordance with the American Expectancy Table of Mortality that has been consistently adopted by the Court[75], the loss of his earning capacity is to be calculated as follows: | |||||