Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. PEPITO TEJERO Y CARANZO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181902 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO PERALTA, J.
The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime by a band.[35] In the crime of robbery with rape, band is considered as an aggravating circumstance.[36] The prosecution established that one of the accused was armed with a handgun, while the other three had knives when they committed the crime.[37]
	GR No. 118133 2003-02-28	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO BALACANAO Y QUINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
With respect to the award of P11,150.00 to the spouses Calata as actual damages for the claimed stolen personal properties: Ordinary witnesses such as private complainants cannot establish the value of jewelry.[46] Neither can the same be taken judicial notice of.[47] The valuations made by Manuel and Estelita cannot thus become the basis for reparation in the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence.
	GR No. 126397 2000-02-01	PEOPLE v. DANIEL MENDOZA CERBITO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
We likewise modify the award of P40,000.00 to private complainant Amor Magsakay. The evidence showed that what was taken from Magsakay was a Seiko watch and P40.00. We have ruled that an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which are matters of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration. The value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration and in the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution witness,[26] we cannot award the reparation for the s Seiko watch.