This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself.[17] The trial court found more credible the testimony of prosecution witnesses Liezl and Angelita, who narrated in a straightforward and candid manner what transpired that fateful night of July 19, 2006. One with the appellate court, We find no reason to set aside their testimonies. | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The CA correctly modified the penalty imposed by the RTC to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The penalty for kidnapping for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code[40] is death. However, R.A. No. 9346[41] has banned the imposition of death penalty and reduced all death sentences to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.[42] In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[43] an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is proper. The award of P100,000.00 moral damages is increased to P200,000.00 considering the minority of Nikko.[44] As the crime was attended by a demand for ransom, and by way of example or correction, Nikko is entitled to P100,000.00 exemplary damages as correctly awarded by the CA.[45] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The award of exemplary damages is justified, the lowering of the penalty to reclusion perpetua in view of the prohibition of the imposition of the death penalty notwithstanding, it not being dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that a qualifying circumstance warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the kidnapping.[42] Based on prevailing jurisprudence,[43] the Court awards P100,000.00 as reasonable for the purpose. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public official.[126] | |||||