Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PETER TARAPEN Y CHONGOY v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 204481-82 2015-10-14	ALBERT G. AMBAGAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Lastly, there is, in the case at bar, reason to believe that Ronnel Bawalan is biased against petitioner, having an axe to grind against the latter for the untimely demise of Reynaldo Santos and Domingo Bawalan, Ronnel Bawalan's "cousin-in-law" and brother, respectively.[82] Bias is that which excites "a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are."[83] A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false. To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.[84]
	GR No. 179487 2010-11-15	ROMEO ILISAN Y PIABOL v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[24] Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper.[25]
	GR No. 179487 2010-11-15	ROMEO ILISAN Y PIABOL v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Moral damages must also be awarded because these are mandatory in cases of homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[26] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages[27] is correct.
	GR No. 179487 2010-11-15	ROMEO ILISAN Y PIABOL v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
We must, however, modify the actual damages awarded by the CA. Actual damages pertain to the actual expenses incurred by the victim's heirs in relation to his death, i.e., burial and funeral expenses. To justify an award therefor, it is necessary for a party to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable, such as receipts.[28] In this case, the actual expenses incurred for the wake and burial of the victim were duly shown by receipts marked as Exhibits "K," "L," "M," and "M-1"[29] in the aggregate amount of P88,520.00. But the CA awarded only P58,520.00, which, after a perusal of the records, appears to have been caused by the non-inclusion of Exhibit "L," a receipt for P30,000.00 paid by the victim's wife to La Funeraria Novaliches for the deceased's autopsy and embalming treatment, and use of mortuary equipment for the interment. Having convincingly proved the nature of the expense in the amount of P30,000.00 in Exhibit "L," it is only right to increase the actual damages awarded to the victim's heirs to P88,520.00.
	GR No. 178337 2009-06-25	CARMEN RITUALO Y RAMOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As held by this Court, the adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does not, moreover, apply where the evidence suppressed is merely corroborative or cumulative in nature.[49] If presented, Biacora's wife would merely corroborate Biacora's account which, by itself, already detailed what occurred on the day of the parties' first meeting at the house of petitioner Ritualo. Hence, the prosecution committed no fatal error in dispensing with the testimony of Biacora's wife.