Lawyerly

GR No. 196005

2014-10-01

CARPIO, ACTING C.J.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the trial court correctly ordered appellant to pay to the heirs of each deceased the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages; however, the amount of exemplary damages must be increased to P30,000.00.[41] Exemplary damages are recoverable due to the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery in the commission of the crimes.[42]

GR No. 187731

2013-09-18

PEOPLE v. SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"For [treachery] to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: a) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and b) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted."[39] "The circumstances surrounding the [killing] must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself."[40] Treachery cannot be presumed.

GR No. 178771

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO

PERALTA, J.

The award of exemplary damages is in order, because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the commission of the crime. [66] The Court awards the amount of P30,000.00, as exemplary damages, in line with current jurisprudence on the matter. [67]

GR No. 178272

2011-03-14

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALCEDO

PERALTA, J.

Anent moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[52] The CA correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of PhP50,000.00 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to her family.[53]

GR No. 192251

2011-02-16

PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS

VELASCO JR., J.

As adverted to above, the credibility of prosecution witnesses Liezl and Angelita has not been successfully assailed by accused-appellants. Besides, in Our assiduous review of the records of the instant case, We cannot weigh and view the evidence in the same light as accused-appellants. It is axiomatic that positive identification by the prosecution witnesses of the accused as perpetrators of the crime is entitled to greater weight than their alibis and denials.[24]

GR No. 180915

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. CHARLIE NAZARENO Y MELANIOS

PEREZ, J.

As to the manner by which appellant killed the victim, there is no doubt that the same was attended by treachery. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that an attack on a victim who has just wakened or who was roused from sleep is one attended by treachery[26] because in such situation, the victim is in no position to put up any form of defense.[27] There is treachery where the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim defenseless and ensuring the accomplishment of the assailant's purpose without risk to himself.[28] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim who does not give the slightest provocation.[29]

GR No. 188602

2010-02-04

PEOPLE v. FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO

NACHURA, J.

The grant of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper, and thus, we sustain the same. In murder, the grant of civil indemnity, which has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00, requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility therefor.[28] Moral damages, on the other hand, are awarded in view of the violent death of the victim. There is no need for any allegation or proof of the emotional sufferings of the heirs.[29]

GR No. 180594

2009-08-19

PEOPLE v. VS.ISMAEL MOKAMMAD

NACHURA, J.

This Court sustains the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of Olomoddin Abbas. Moral damages are awarded in view of the violent death of the victim. These do not require allegation and proof of the emotional sufferings of the heirs. [33]

GR No. 177162

2009-03-31

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO PAJABERA Y DOE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

On the civil aspect of the case, the Court finds the awards of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages in order based on prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Instead of actual damages, the Court awards temperate damages of P25,000[31] as the actual damages claimed by the prosecution and admitted by appellant amount to P10,000[32] or less than P25,000.

GR No. 181901

2008-11-28

PEOPLE v. EMILIO MANCHU

NACHURA, J.

However, the RTC and the CA erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages in one lump sum since these are distinct from each other and, hence, should be determined separately. Moral damages are awarded where the claimant experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury as a result of the felonious act.[24] The award of exemplary damages, on the other hand, is warranted when the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[25]

	GR No. 196005 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE FIELDAD CARPIO, ACTING C.J.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the trial court correctly ordered appellant to pay to the heirs of each deceased the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages; however, the amount of exemplary damages must be increased to P30,000.00.[41] Exemplary damages are recoverable due to the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery in the commission of the crimes.[42]
	GR No. 187731 2013-09-18	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG DEL CASTILLO, J.
"For [treachery] to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: a) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and b) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted."[39] "The circumstances surrounding the [killing] must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself."[40] Treachery cannot be presumed.
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
The award of exemplary damages is in order, because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the commission of the crime. [66] The Court awards the amount of P30,000.00, as exemplary damages, in line with current jurisprudence on the matter. [67]
	GR No. 178272 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALCEDO PERALTA, J.
Anent moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[52] The CA correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of PhP50,000.00 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to her family.[53]
	GR No. 192251 2011-02-16	PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS VELASCO JR., J.
As adverted to above, the credibility of prosecution witnesses Liezl and Angelita has not been successfully assailed by accused-appellants. Besides, in Our assiduous review of the records of the instant case, We cannot weigh and view the evidence in the same light as accused-appellants. It is axiomatic that positive identification by the prosecution witnesses of the accused as perpetrators of the crime is entitled to greater weight than their alibis and denials.[24]
	GR No. 180915 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE NAZARENO Y MELANIOS PEREZ, J.
As to the manner by which appellant killed the victim, there is no doubt that the same was attended by treachery. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that an attack on a victim who has just wakened or who was roused from sleep is one attended by treachery[26] because in such situation, the victim is in no position to put up any form of defense.[27] There is treachery where the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim defenseless and ensuring the accomplishment of the assailant's purpose without risk to himself.[28] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim who does not give the slightest provocation.[29]
	GR No. 188602 2010-02-04	PEOPLE v. FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO NACHURA, J.
The grant of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper, and thus, we sustain the same. In murder, the grant of civil indemnity, which has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00, requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility therefor.[28] Moral damages, on the other hand, are awarded in view of the violent death of the victim. There is no need for any allegation or proof of the emotional sufferings of the heirs.[29]
	GR No. 180594 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. VS.ISMAEL MOKAMMAD NACHURA, J.
This Court sustains the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of Olomoddin Abbas. Moral damages are awarded in view of the violent death of the victim. These do not require allegation and proof of the emotional sufferings of the heirs. [33]
	GR No. 177162 2009-03-31	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO PAJABERA Y DOE CARPIO MORALES, J.
On the civil aspect of the case, the Court finds the awards of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages in order based on prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Instead of actual damages, the Court awards temperate damages of P25,000[31] as the actual damages claimed by the prosecution and admitted by appellant amount to P10,000[32] or less than P25,000.
	GR No. 181901 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. EMILIO MANCHU NACHURA, J.
However, the RTC and the CA erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages in one lump sum since these are distinct from each other and, hence, should be determined separately. Moral damages are awarded where the claimant experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury as a result of the felonious act.[24] The award of exemplary damages, on the other hand, is warranted when the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[25]

PEOPLE v. ESPERIDION BALAIS