Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HERMAN D. BATO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181084 2009-06-16	PEOPLE v. BARTOLOME TAMPUS PUNO, C.J.
In Garces v. People,[89] People v. Flores,[90] People v. Barbosa,[91] People v. Ragundiaz,[92] People v. Bato,[93] and People v. Garalde,[94] the accomplice was held to be solidarity liable with the principal for only one-half (1/2) of the amount adjudged as civil indemnity. In Garces, the accomplice was held solidarity liable for half of the civil indemnity ex delicto but was made to pay the moral damages of P50,000.00 separately from the principal. In Flores, Ragundiaz, Bato, and Garalde, the accomplice was held solidarily liable for half of the combined amounts of the civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages. In Ragundiaz, the accomplice was also made solidarily liable with the principal for half of the actual damages, and in Garalde the accomplice was also held solidarily liable with the principal for half of the exemplary damages, aside from the civil and moral damages.
	GR No. 138470 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO GARCIA Y CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime,[22] which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[23] In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.[24]
	GR No. 135936 2001-09-19	PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR MENDOZA, J.
Based on the foregoing considerations, accused-appellant is guilty of murder and should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in line with the prevailing doctrine and no proof is needed since it is intended as indemnity for the death of the victim.[47] However, the award of P14,500.00 as actual damages should be reduced to P10,500.00 considering that only the latter amount, which covers funeral and burial expenses, is duly supported by receipts. The balance of P4,000.00 must be deleted as only a handwritten list of alleged expenses during the victim's wake was presented. In addition, consistent with this Court's rulings,[48] accused-appellant should be ordered to pay the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
	GR No. 128617 2001-06-20	PEOPLE v. CESAR BACUS Y VILLAHERMOSA MENDOZA, J.
Based on the foregoing considerations, accused-appellant is guilty of murder and should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in line with the prevailing doctrine. Civil indemnity is intended as indemnity for the death of the victim and need not be proven.[42] The award of P6,000.00 as actual damages is likewise proper considering that such amount covers funeral expenses which were duly supported by receipts. However, in accordance with our rulings,[43] accused-appellant should be ordered to pay the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.