Lawyerly

GR No. 188612

2012-07-30

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

However, contrary to the findings of both the trial and appellate courts, this Court finds that the use of unlicensed firearm was not duly proven by the prosecution. The evidence indicates that none of the firearms used in the November 3, 1999 massacre were ever recovered and presented in the trial court. Nevertheless, there is jurisprudence which states that the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.[46] The testimony of the prosecution witnesses had established that appellant Camat used a long firearm of unknown make and caliber to shoot his victims but that would still be insufficient to attribute to his felonious act the qualifying circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm in light of jurisprudence which asserts that in order for the same to be considered, adequate proof, such as written or testimonial evidence, must be presented showing that the appellant was not a licensed firearm holder.[47] There was no such proof in the case at bar.

GR No. 171951

2009-08-28

AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

We shall, however, modify the award of damages to the heirs of Manuel Chy for his loss of earning capacity in the amount of P332,000. In fixing the indemnity, the victim's actual income at the time of death and probable life expectancy are taken into account. For this purpose, the Court adopts the formula used in People v. Malinao:[42]

GR No. 179943

2009-06-26

PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO

PERALTA, J.

In interpreting the same provision, the trial court reasoned that such provision is "silent as to whether it is generic or qualifying."[68] Thus, it ruled that "when the law is silent, the same must be interpreted in favor of the accused."[69] Since a generic aggravating circumstance is more favorable to petitioner compared to a qualifying aggravating circumstance, as the latter changes the nature of the crime and increase the penalty thereof by degrees, the trial court proceeded to declare that the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner is to be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance.[70] This interpretation is erroneous, since we already held in several cases that with the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance.[71] Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant case since it took effect before the commission of the crimes in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic aggravating circumstance.

GR No. 179943

2009-06-26

PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO

PERALTA, J.

In another case,[72] this Court ruled that, the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.[73] In the said case, it was established that Elmer and Marcelina Hidalgo died of, and Pedro Hidalgo sustained, gunshot wounds. The ballistic examination of the slugs recovered from the place of the incident showed that they were fired from a .30 carbine rifle and a .38 caliber firearm. The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant therein as one of those who were holding a long firearm. It was also established that the same appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. Hence, this Court ruled that the trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance.

GR No. 174371

2008-12-11

PEOPLE v. WARREN DELA CRUZ Y FRANCISCO

REYES, R.T., J.

All told, Weholdthatappellant wasproperly convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua in each case.We, however, find that an award of exemplary damagesintheamount of P25,000.00 a piecetotheheirs of DaniloandFelixis proper.Exemplary damages are awarded, as here, when treachery attended commission of the crime.[61]

GR No. 173023

2008-06-25

PEOPLE v. RESURRECCION RANIN

QUISUMBING, J.

With regard to the amount of actual damages, only expenses supported by receipts will be allowed. [28] Hence, the award of P77,000 as actual damages by the trial court should be reduced to P42,000. [29] The parties have also stipulated on the entitlement of the victim's heirs to moral damages. [30] The controlling case law [31] sets the amount of moral damages at P50,000.

GR No. 172752

2008-06-18

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SISON

REYES, R.T., J.

The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is likewise justified when treachery is proved,[65] as in this case.

GR No. 174479

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. ZALDY GARCIA Y ANCHETA

BRION, J.

The grant of civil indemnity for the crime of murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the appellant's responsibility therefor.[79] While the trial court and the CA commonly awarded P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the murder victim's heirs, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an award of P75,000.00.[80] Hence, we modify the civil indemnity award to this extent to be paid by the appellant to the heirs of Major Opina.

GR NO. 174775

2007-10-11

PEOPLE v. MAMERTO DULAY

CARPIO, J.

The existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.[19] It was established that Elmer and Marcelina Hidalgo died of, and Pedro Hidalgo sustained, gunshot wounds. The ballistic examination of the slugs recovered from the place of the incident showed that they were fired from a .30 carbine rifle and a .38 caliber firearm. The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant as one of those who were holding a long firearm. It was established that appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. Hence, the trial court and the Court of Appeals likewise correctly appreciated the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance.

GR NO. 153875

2006-08-16

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO DAGANI Y REYES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to the award of damages, prevailing jurisprudence entitles the heirs of the deceased to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[56]

GR Nos. 148145-46

2004-07-05

PEOPLE v. FELIX VENTURA Y QUINDOY

PER CURIAM

As regards the civil liability of the appellants, the award of the trial court is hereby modified as follows:In Criminal Case No. 00-20692, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Aileen as civil indemnity for her death is sustained, the commission of the crime by appellants having been duly proven.[101] The award of moral damages to her heirs is likewise proper considering that the prosecution presented adequate proof that they suffered mental anguish and wounded feelings.[102] However, the amount of moral damages awarded by the trial court is hereby reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[103] It should be borne in mind that the purpose for such award is to compensate the heirs of the victim for the injuries to their feelings and not to enrich them.[104]

GR No. 133685-86

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. AMADO BAGNATE

PER CURIAM

The award of civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages, which is based on a different jural foundation and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[44] Considering that the prosecution failed to show any proof that the heirs of Aurea Broña are entitled to moral damages, the same may not be awarded.[45]

	GR No. 188612 2012-07-30	PEOPLE v. DIOSDADO CAMAT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
However, contrary to the findings of both the trial and appellate courts, this Court finds that the use of unlicensed firearm was not duly proven by the prosecution. The evidence indicates that none of the firearms used in the November 3, 1999 massacre were ever recovered and presented in the trial court. Nevertheless, there is jurisprudence which states that the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.[46] The testimony of the prosecution witnesses had established that appellant Camat used a long firearm of unknown make and caliber to shoot his victims but that would still be insufficient to attribute to his felonious act the qualifying circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm in light of jurisprudence which asserts that in order for the same to be considered, adequate proof, such as written or testimonial evidence, must be presented showing that the appellant was not a licensed firearm holder.[47] There was no such proof in the case at bar.
	GR No. 171951 2009-08-28	AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
We shall, however, modify the award of damages to the heirs of Manuel Chy for his loss of earning capacity in the amount of P332,000. In fixing the indemnity, the victim's actual income at the time of death and probable life expectancy are taken into account. For this purpose, the Court adopts the formula used in People v. Malinao:[42]
	GR No. 179943 2009-06-26	PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO PERALTA, J.
In interpreting the same provision, the trial court reasoned that such provision is "silent as to whether it is generic or qualifying."[68] Thus, it ruled that "when the law is silent, the same must be interpreted in favor of the accused."[69] Since a generic aggravating circumstance is more favorable to petitioner compared to a qualifying aggravating circumstance, as the latter changes the nature of the crime and increase the penalty thereof by degrees, the trial court proceeded to declare that the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner is to be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance.[70] This interpretation is erroneous, since we already held in several cases that with the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance.[71] Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant case since it took effect before the commission of the crimes in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic aggravating circumstance.
	GR No. 179943 2009-06-26	PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO PERALTA, J.
In another case,[72] this Court ruled that, the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.[73] In the said case, it was established that Elmer and Marcelina Hidalgo died of, and Pedro Hidalgo sustained, gunshot wounds. The ballistic examination of the slugs recovered from the place of the incident showed that they were fired from a .30 carbine rifle and a .38 caliber firearm. The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant therein as one of those who were holding a long firearm. It was also established that the same appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. Hence, this Court ruled that the trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance.
	GR No. 174371 2008-12-11	PEOPLE v. WARREN DELA CRUZ Y FRANCISCO REYES, R.T., J.
All told, Weholdthatappellant wasproperly convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua in each case.We, however, find that an award of exemplary damagesintheamount of P25,000.00 a piecetotheheirs of DaniloandFelixis proper.Exemplary damages are awarded, as here, when treachery attended commission of the crime.[61]
	GR No. 173023 2008-06-25	PEOPLE v. RESURRECCION RANIN QUISUMBING, J.
With regard to the amount of actual damages, only expenses supported by receipts will be allowed. [28] Hence, the award of P77,000 as actual damages by the trial court should be reduced to P42,000. [29] The parties have also stipulated on the entitlement of the victim's heirs to moral damages. [30] The controlling case law [31] sets the amount of moral damages at P50,000.
	GR No. 172752 2008-06-18	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SISON REYES, R.T., J.
The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is likewise justified when treachery is proved,[65] as in this case.
	GR No. 174479 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. ZALDY GARCIA Y ANCHETA BRION, J.
The grant of civil indemnity for the crime of murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the appellant's responsibility therefor.[79] While the trial court and the CA commonly awarded P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the murder victim's heirs, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an award of P75,000.00.[80] Hence, we modify the civil indemnity award to this extent to be paid by the appellant to the heirs of Major Opina.
	GR NO. 174775 2007-10-11	PEOPLE v. MAMERTO DULAY CARPIO, J.
The existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.[19] It was established that Elmer and Marcelina Hidalgo died of, and Pedro Hidalgo sustained, gunshot wounds. The ballistic examination of the slugs recovered from the place of the incident showed that they were fired from a .30 carbine rifle and a .38 caliber firearm. The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant as one of those who were holding a long firearm. It was established that appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. Hence, the trial court and the Court of Appeals likewise correctly appreciated the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance.
	GR NO. 153875 2006-08-16	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO DAGANI Y REYES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the award of damages, prevailing jurisprudence entitles the heirs of the deceased to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[56]
	GR Nos. 148145-46 2004-07-05	PEOPLE v. FELIX VENTURA Y QUINDOY PER CURIAM
As regards the civil liability of the appellants, the award of the trial court is hereby modified as follows:In Criminal Case No. 00-20692, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Aileen as civil indemnity for her death is sustained, the commission of the crime by appellants having been duly proven.[101] The award of moral damages to her heirs is likewise proper considering that the prosecution presented adequate proof that they suffered mental anguish and wounded feelings.[102] However, the amount of moral damages awarded by the trial court is hereby reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[103] It should be borne in mind that the purpose for such award is to compensate the heirs of the victim for the injuries to their feelings and not to enrich them.[104]
	GR No. 133685-86 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. AMADO BAGNATE PER CURIAM
The award of civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages, which is based on a different jural foundation and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[44] Considering that the prosecution failed to show any proof that the heirs of Aurea Broña are entitled to moral damages, the same may not be awarded.[45]

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY MALINAO Y NOBE