Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 188353 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ Y BALOBAL VELASCO JR., J.
Finally, as regards the damages awarded by the CA, we find them in order. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence or proof of damages other than the commission of the crime.[31] Based on current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of PhP 50,000 in favor of the heirs of Vincent Pimentel is in order.[32] The CA also correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of PhP 50,000 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to his family.[33]
	GR No. 167464 2010-01-21	RONNIE SUMBILLO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Finally, Pangan is likewise entitled to exemplary damages since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established. If an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, accompanies the crime, an award of P25,000 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the Civil Code. This serves as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as vindication for undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured person or punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[30]
	GR No. 184958 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. ANTHONY C. DOMINGO VELASCO JR., J.
Anthony further imputes ill motive on the prosecution witnesses, claiming that they blame him for the death of Nida's brother, Tenorio de Pedro; thus, their testimonies are not worthy of belief. It is doctrinal that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and his or her testimony is accorded the highest respect because of the court's untrammeled opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness and, thus, to determine whether he or she is telling the truth. It is also settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[25] In this case, both courts found that the eyewitnesses are credible. We do not see any reason to disregard such finding. We concur with the trial court's findings: The Court cannot find any well-grounded basis that will indicate that these eyewitnesses were merely actuated by any improper motive.
	GR No. 172370 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. FLORENDA CASTRO REYES, R.T., J.
In Malana v. People,[51] We convicted the accused of murder and ordered him to pay the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 by way of moral damages. The same civil indemnity and moral damages were awarded by the Court to the heirs of the murdered victims in People v. Segobre,[52] People v. Ausa,[53] and in People v. Piliin.[54]
	GR No. 173249 2007-11-20	PEOPLE v. AMANDO GANNABAN CARPIO, J.
Finally, the victims' heirs are likewise entitled to exemplary damages since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established by the prosecution. We have held that if a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[11] This kind of damages serves as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as vindication of undue suffering and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured person, and as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.