Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VS.SPO1 JOSE BANGCADO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 171348 2008-11-26	PEOPLE v. LARRY ERGUIZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An offer of compromise from an unauthorized person cannot amount to an admission of the party himself.[59] Although the Court has held in some cases that an attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case is an implied admission of guilt,[60] we believe that the better rule is that for a compromise to amount to an implied admission of guilt, the accused should have been present or at least authorized the proposed compromise.[61] Moreover, it has been held that where the accused was not present at the time the offer for monetary consideration was made, such offer of compromise would not save the day for the prosecution.[62]
	GR No. 146296 2007-10-15	EDUARDO GULMATICO Y BRIGATAY v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Lastly, we are not persuaded by petitioner's contention that the fact that he came back to the Lipaycos' house on January 1, 1997 shows that he is innocent of the offense charged. It is established in this jurisdiction that while flight indicates guilt, non-flight does not mean innocence.[41] Much like the defenses of alibi and denial, non-flight cannot prevail against the weight of positive identification of the accused.[42] Therefore, the Court finds no reason to overturn the judgment of conviction against the petitioner for the crime of Theft as the prosecution sufficiently proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR NO. 154502 2007-04-27	EMMIE RESAYO Y CRUZ v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused in the crime are definitely shown, particularly when we consider that it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all.[16]
	GR NO. 165483 2006-09-12	RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Criminal Case No. U-9610 for Homicide, we agree with both courts that the proper amount of civil indemnity is P50,000.00, and that the proper amount for moral damages is P50,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[70] However, based on the receipts for hospital, medicine, funeral and burial expenses on record, and upon computation of the same, the proper amount of actual damages should be P42,374.18, instead of P43,556.00. Actual damages for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded in this case since there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the same.[71] Although there may be exceptions to this rule,[72] none is availing in the present case. Nevertheless, since loss was actually established in this case, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 may be awarded to the heirs of Melton Ferrer. Under Article 2224 of the New Civil Code, temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Moreover, exemplary damages should be awarded in this case since the presence of special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was already established.[73] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of exemplary damages for homicide is P25,000.00.[74]
	GR No. 148737 2004-06-16	ERNESTO PLEYTO v. MARIA D. LOMBOY QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners' claim that no substantial proof was presented to prove Ricardo Lomboy's gross income lacks merit. Failure to present documentary evidence to support a claim for loss of earning capacity of the deceased need not be fatal to its cause. Testimonial evidence suffices to establish a basis for which the court can make a fair and reasonable estimate of the loss of earning capacity.[23] Hence, the testimony of respondent Maria Lomboy, Ricardo's widow, that her husband was earning a monthly income of P8,000 is sufficient to establish a basis for an estimate of damages for loss of earning capacity.
	GR No. 152966 2004-03-17	PEOPLE v. JERRY SE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant is entitled to a minimum term which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed for the offense, i.e., prision mayor, or from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.[36] Anent the civil liability of appellant, the trial court correctly ordered the payment of P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto, which needs no further proof other than the commission of the crime of homicide.[37] The award of moral damages in the
	GR No. 137457 2001-11-21	PEOPLE v. ROSAURO SIA Y DICHOSO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court was correct in awarding damages for loss of earning capacity despite the non-availability of documentary evidence.[56] Damages representing net earning capacity have been awarded by the Court based on testimony in several cases.[57] However, the amount of the trial court's award needs to be recomputed and modified accordingly.
	GR No. 129212 2001-09-14	PEOPLE v. MARIO LACUESTA BELLOSILLO, J.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 38, Iloilo City, finding accused-appellant MARIO LACUESTA guilty of MURDER for the death of Nestor Mata and ATTEMPTED MURDER for the wounding of Danilo Panes for which he was accordingly sentenced to reclusion perpetua for MURDER, and an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the deceased Nestor Mata P22,482.40, and Danilo Panes P1,815.00 as actual damages is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of Nestor Mata in the amount of P50,000.00 is increased to P75,000.00 conformably with prevailing jurisprudence.[17] In addition, the minimum prison term imposed on accused-appellant should be properly denominated prision correccional medium, while the maximum of ten (10) years should be denominated prision mayor medium. Costs against accused-appellant.
	GR No. 139622 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. PEDRO PERRERAS BELLOSILLO, J.
The heirs of the deceased may recover damages for loss of earning capacity. Although the prosecution did not present documentary evidence to support this claim, testimonial evidence is sufficient to establish a basis for which the court can make a fair and reasonable estimate of damages for loss of earning capacity,[28] and the unrebutted testimony of Leonora Salo is sufficient basis for the award. She testified that the victim was fifty (50) years old at the time of his death and earned a basic salary of P130.00 a day but including tips as waiter in a restaurant he was earning a total average of P9,000.00 per month. Under the American Expectancy Table of Mortality adopted by this Court in several cases,[29] loss of earning capacity is computed according to the following formula: Net Earning Capacity (X) = Life Expectancy x Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses (50% of Gross Annual Income) where life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - [age of deceased]); and Gross Annual Income = Monthly Earnings x number of months (12) Therefore, X = 2/3 (80-50) x [(P9,000.00 x 12) - [P9,000.00 x 12) 50%] X = 2/3 (30) x [P108,000.00 - P54,000.00] X = 20 x P54,000.00 X = P1,080,000.00 The award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is reduced to P50,000.00 since murder was not qualified by any circumstance under which the death penalty is authorized. The testimony of Leonora that she suffered sleepless nights and mental anxiety as a result of her husband's murder sufficiently justifies moral damages,[30] although the award of P100,000.00 may be considered excessive hence must be lowered to P50,000.00 to conform with current jurisprudence.[31]