Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO LICYAYO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183202 2014-06-02	ALBERTO ALMOJUELA Y VILLANUEVA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
We note that the RTC awarded P35,000.00 as funeral expenses to the heirs of Quejong; this amount was affirmed by the CA. However, since no documentary evidence was presented to support this claim, it cannot be awarded. Nonetheless, an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when no evidence of the said expenses is presented during trial. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered since it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss, though the exact amount was not proven.[32]
	GR No. 182918 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE BRION, J.
We also find that the CA erred in crediting the appellant with the mitigating circumstance of intoxication simply because Garcia testified that "the accused were both drunk." [27] For intoxication to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that the intoxication impaired the willpower of the accused that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts. [28]
	GR No. 190521 2011-01-12	LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS BRION, J.
As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity.[27] By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[28]
	GR No. 176946 2010-11-15	CONSTANCIA G. TAMAYO v. ROSALIA ABAD SEÑORA NACHURA, J.
On the other hand, gross annual income requires the presentation of documentary evidence for the purpose of proving the victim's annual income.[33] The victim's heirs presented in evidence Señora's pay slip from the PNP, showing him to have had a gross monthly salary of P12,754.00.[34] Meanwhile, the victim's net income was correctly pegged at 50% of his gross income in the absence of proof as regards the victim's living expenses.[35]
	GR No. 177753 2009-09-25	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN OCAMPO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The general rule is that documentary evidence is necessary to prove the victim's annual income. Excepted from the rule[28] for testimonial evidence to suffice as proof is if the victim was either: (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[29]
	GR No. 176744 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. ADELADO ANGUAC Y RAGADAO VELASCO JR., J.
As the Court has previously held, the character of the crime is determined neither by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the information.[18] Consequently, even if the designation of the crime in the information of Criminal Case No. RTC 2757-I was defective, what is controlling is the allegation of the facts in the information that comprises a crime and adequately describes the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused.
	GR No. 177564 2008-10-31	ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Also affirmed is the award of damages by the RTC. The actual damages in the amount of P43,615.00 for funeral expenses is stipulated upon by the parties. It should be maintained. The award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 for moral damages is likewise in accord with latest jurisprudence.[40]