This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The trial and appellate courts did not award actual damages, obviously because the victim's heirs failed to present proof of the expenses they incurred. However, it has been repeatedly held by this Court that where the amount of actual damages cannot be determined because of the absence of receipts to prove the same, temperate damages may be fixed at P25,000.00.[38] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| x x x." (Underscoring ours) When an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, Section 3 of the same Rule specifies the steps to be followed by the trial court, thus: "SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. (3a)" In People vs. Flaviano R. Segnar, Jr.,[11] we ruled that there is no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a "searching inquiry," or as to the number and character of questions he may ask the accused, or as to the earnestness with which he may conduct it, since each case must be measured according to its individual merit.[12] The singular barometer is that the judge must, in all cases, fully convince himself that: (1) the accused, in pleading guilty, is doing so voluntarily meaning, he was not coerced or threatened of physical harm, or placed under a state of duress; and (2) that he is truly guilty on the basis of his testimony. Thus, in determining whether an accused's plea of guilty to a capital offense is improvident, we held that considering their training, we leave to the judges ample discretion, but expect them at the same time that they will be true to their calling and be worthy ministers of the law and justice.[13] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The trial court did not award actual damages, obviously because the victim's heirs did not present proof of funeral expenses incurred. To be entitled to such damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to the injured party.[20] In People vs. Abrazaldo,[21] we held that where, as here, the amount of actual damages cannot be determined because no receipts were presented to prove the same, but it is shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages may be awarded, fixed at P25,000.00. Considering that funeral expenses were obviously incurred by Catalina's heirs, an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is proper.[22] | |||||