Lawyerly

GR No. 189301

2010-12-15

VELASCO JR., J.

When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[59] In People v. Tubongbanua,[60] interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People,[61] People v. Buban,[62] People v. Guevarra,[63] and People v. Regalario.[64] Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

GR No. 182156

2009-11-25

REY A. VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

First. As correctly invoked by the CA, our ruling in People v. Buban[27] clearly teaches that family relationship does not by itself render an eyewitness' testimony inadmissible, less credible or devoid of probative value. Verily, to discredit Rosario's testimony just because she is Manuel's mother is unfair. On the contrary, Rosario would have no reason to simply and indiscriminately impute the crime to anybody, especially to petitioner who is a cousin of Manuel. However, it is necessary that Rosario should have positively identified the malefactor properly in order to secure the conviction of the real culprit and obtain justice.

GR No. 185726

2009-10-16

PEOPLE v. DARWIN BERNABE Y GARCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The trial court accorded greater weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and dismissed accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, holding the same as self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As often stressed by this Court, the issue of credibility of witnesses is a function properly lodged with the trial court, whose findings are entitled to great weight and accorded the highest respect by the reviewing courts.[27]

GR No. 184343

2009-03-02

PEOPLE v. JESUS DOMINGO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant is guilty of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. 1500-M-2000. The penalty for Frustrated Murder is reclusion temporal, which must be imposed in its medium period, considering that there were neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances that were proven in this case. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal medium, as the maximum penalty. This Court affirms the award by the Court of Appeals of (1) Civil Indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00;[43] (2) actual damages of P46,343.00 for medical expenses, which are supported by receipts marked as Exhibits "I" and "J"; and (3) moral damages of P25,000.00. Appellant is also ordered to pay exemplary damages of P25,000.00 based on the finding that the assault against Raquel Indon was attended by treachery.[44] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[45] At the time Raquel was attacked, she was in her home, unarmed and sleeping with her children. She was undoubtedly unprepared and defenseless to resist appellant's attack on her and her young children.

GR No. 182192

2008-10-29

PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to damages, both courts acted accordingly in awarding civil indemnity[61] to the heirs of Inspector Barte since the award of this damage is mandatory in murder cases.[62] Nevertheless, the amount of P50,000.00 imposed as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00 based on prevailing jurisprudence.[63] In People v. Quiachon,[64] we explained that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on accused because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper as the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. In the instant case, the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm attended the killing of Inspector Barte. These circumstances were duly alleged in the information and proven during the trial.

GR No. 173824

2008-08-28

PETER TARAPEN Y CHONGOY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[68] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[69] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[70]

GR No. 179499

2008-04-30

PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest in proper cases.[16]

GR No. 173282

2008-03-04

JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[65] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[66] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[67]

GR No. 170974

2008-03-03

ROMEO I. SUERTE-FELIPE v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The trial court ordered petitioner to pay actual damages of P21,800.00 and indemnity for death in the amount of P50,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed these awards and ordered petitioner to pay an additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. We sustain these awards of damages to the heirs of Godofredo Ariate. The amount of actual damages had been duly proven by receipts.[54] No proof is necessary for the award of civil indemnity for death other than the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the assailant.[55] The award of moral damages in cases of violent death is indeed fixed at P50,000.00 under current case law.[56]

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The RTC awarded P75,000.00 in favor of the heirs of Josita Novelo as civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals reduced the award of civil indemnity to P50,000.00. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Based on current jurisprudence, the RTC award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P75,000.00 in favor of the heirs of Josita Novelo is in order.[69]

GR No. 149354

2008-01-18

ROLAND V. VELOSO v. PEOPLE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment whether or not it is an assigned error.[4]

	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[59] In People v. Tubongbanua,[60] interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People,[61] People v. Buban,[62] People v. Guevarra,[63] and People v. Regalario.[64] Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
	GR No. 182156 2009-11-25	REY A. VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
First. As correctly invoked by the CA, our ruling in People v. Buban[27] clearly teaches that family relationship does not by itself render an eyewitness' testimony inadmissible, less credible or devoid of probative value. Verily, to discredit Rosario's testimony just because she is Manuel's mother is unfair. On the contrary, Rosario would have no reason to simply and indiscriminately impute the crime to anybody, especially to petitioner who is a cousin of Manuel. However, it is necessary that Rosario should have positively identified the malefactor properly in order to secure the conviction of the real culprit and obtain justice.
	GR No. 185726 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. DARWIN BERNABE Y GARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The trial court accorded greater weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and dismissed accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, holding the same as self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As often stressed by this Court, the issue of credibility of witnesses is a function properly lodged with the trial court, whose findings are entitled to great weight and accorded the highest respect by the reviewing courts.[27]
	GR No. 184343 2009-03-02	PEOPLE v. JESUS DOMINGO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant is guilty of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. 1500-M-2000. The penalty for Frustrated Murder is reclusion temporal, which must be imposed in its medium period, considering that there were neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances that were proven in this case. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal medium, as the maximum penalty. This Court affirms the award by the Court of Appeals of (1) Civil Indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00;[43] (2) actual damages of P46,343.00 for medical expenses, which are supported by receipts marked as Exhibits "I" and "J"; and (3) moral damages of P25,000.00. Appellant is also ordered to pay exemplary damages of P25,000.00 based on the finding that the assault against Raquel Indon was attended by treachery.[44] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[45] At the time Raquel was attacked, she was in her home, unarmed and sleeping with her children. She was undoubtedly unprepared and defenseless to resist appellant's attack on her and her young children.
	GR No. 182192 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to damages, both courts acted accordingly in awarding civil indemnity[61] to the heirs of Inspector Barte since the award of this damage is mandatory in murder cases.[62] Nevertheless, the amount of P50,000.00 imposed as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00 based on prevailing jurisprudence.[63] In People v. Quiachon,[64] we explained that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on accused because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper as the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. In the instant case, the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm attended the killing of Inspector Barte. These circumstances were duly alleged in the information and proven during the trial.
	GR No. 173824 2008-08-28	PETER TARAPEN Y CHONGOY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[68] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[69] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[70]
	GR No. 179499 2008-04-30	PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest in proper cases.[16]
	GR No. 173282 2008-03-04	JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[65] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[66] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[67]
	GR No. 170974 2008-03-03	ROMEO I. SUERTE-FELIPE v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court ordered petitioner to pay actual damages of P21,800.00 and indemnity for death in the amount of P50,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed these awards and ordered petitioner to pay an additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. We sustain these awards of damages to the heirs of Godofredo Ariate. The amount of actual damages had been duly proven by receipts.[54] No proof is necessary for the award of civil indemnity for death other than the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the assailant.[55] The award of moral damages in cases of violent death is indeed fixed at P50,000.00 under current case law.[56]
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The RTC awarded P75,000.00 in favor of the heirs of Josita Novelo as civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals reduced the award of civil indemnity to P50,000.00. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Based on current jurisprudence, the RTC award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P75,000.00 in favor of the heirs of Josita Novelo is in order.[69]
	GR No. 149354 2008-01-18	ROLAND V. VELOSO v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment whether or not it is an assigned error.[4]

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BUBAN