Lawyerly

GR No. 169425

2008-03-04

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We have held that in the absence of proof as regards the victim's living expenses, his net income is deemed to be 50 percent of his gross income.[59]

GR No. 124871

2004-05-13

PEOPLE v. MARIFE BELLO Y ROSCO

PUNO, J.

Be that as it may, we find that the trial court erred in holding that the appellants were part of a syndicated or organized crime group under Article 62 (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code,[31] as amended, which merits the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. While the appellants and their co-accused confederated and mutually helped one another for the purpose of gain, it was neither alleged nor proved that they formed part of a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain which is the essence of a syndicated or organized crime group.[32]

GR No. 137585

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ROM Y SARDEDO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The compensatory damages or for loss of earning capacity of the deceased victim, in the amount of P1,247,400.00, should be amended in accordance with the computation formulated in People vs. Napalit,[16] to wit: 2/3 x (life expectancy minus age of victim) multiplied by [monthly income minus ½ (living expenses)], thus: Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-34[17]) x [P4,950.00 ½ (P4,950.00)]

GR No. 148627

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. JENELITO IBAÑEZ

PUNO, J.

Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[68] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[69] By way of exception, testimonial evidence may suffice if the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[70] Cristeta testified that her father was self-employed and earned his living by harvesting corn twice a year for which he had a gross income of P5,000 per harvest. He also sold around 100 fighting cocks a year, for which he received a minimum of P500.00 per cock net of expenses or a total income of P50,000.00.[71] These statements remain unchallenged and uncontroverted by the appellants. Thus, the Court affirms that Belardo Pagapulan's gross annual income is P60,000.00. In People vs. Napalit,[72] we set the formula for computation of loss of earning capacity, thus: Net earning capacity 2/3 x (80 age of the victim at the time of his death) x a reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received by the heirs for support

GR No. 128148

2004-02-16

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY MALINAO Y NOBE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Moreover, the heirs of Nestor are also entitled to damages for the loss of the latter's earning capacity. In fixing the indemnity, account is taken of the victim's actual income at the time of his death and his probable life expectancy.[54] Thus, in People vs. Napalit[55] the following formula was adopted by this Court:no

GR Nos. 137949-52

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. GEORGE 'JORGE' BOLINGET Y BAGTAN

PUNO, J.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the doctrine that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually take part in the homicide. The exception is when it is clearly shown that the accused endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing.[37]

GR No. 121177

2003-11-12

PEOPLE v. CHARLIE ALMOGUERRA

PER CURIAM

The foregoing circumstances when viewed in their entirety are as convincing as direct evidence and as such, negate the innocence of the appellants. Otherwise stated, the prosecution established beyond a shadow of a doubt, through circumstantial evidence, that both appellants conspired to commit the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The elements of this crime are: (a) the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, here used in its generic sense, is committed.[51]

GR No. 132788

2003-10-23

PEOPLE v. ISAIAS FERNANDEZ Y VERAS

QUISUMBING, J.

In this case, the allegation of being part of a syndicate or that appellant and companions had formed part of a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of a syndicated or organized crime group,[83] was neither alleged nor proved by the prosecution. Hence, we agree that it was error for the trial court to sentence appellant under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659.

GR No. 135029

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Although the amount of P100,000.00 for loss of income awarded by the trial court in favor of the heirs of the victim was not assailed by appellants, the amount awarded would have to be modified pursuant to the formula followed in People vs. Napalit,[75] to wit: Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-age of the victim at the time of his death) x a reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received by the heirs for support In the absence of proof of living expenses, the net income is deemed to be 50% of the gross income.[76]

GR No. 120874

2003-07-31

TUGADE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to indemnity for loss of earning capacity, we take note of Exh. L-1[50] showing Henry Tugade's compensation to be Eight Hundred Three Pesos (P803.00) a month which amounts to an annual income of P9,636.00. He was 26 years old at the time of his death. Using the formula enunciated in People vs. Napalit,[51] we compute his lost earning capacity thus: Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-26) x [P9,636.00 - ½(P9,636.00)]

	GR No. 169425 2008-03-04	ROBERTO LICYAYO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have held that in the absence of proof as regards the victim's living expenses, his net income is deemed to be 50 percent of his gross income.[59]
	GR No. 124871 2004-05-13	PEOPLE v. MARIFE BELLO Y ROSCO PUNO, J.
Be that as it may, we find that the trial court erred in holding that the appellants were part of a syndicated or organized crime group under Article 62 (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code,[31] as amended, which merits the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. While the appellants and their co-accused confederated and mutually helped one another for the purpose of gain, it was neither alleged nor proved that they formed part of a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain which is the essence of a syndicated or organized crime group.[32]
	GR No. 137585 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ROM Y SARDEDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The compensatory damages or for loss of earning capacity of the deceased victim, in the amount of P1,247,400.00, should be amended in accordance with the computation formulated in People vs. Napalit,[16] to wit: 2/3 x (life expectancy minus age of victim) multiplied by [monthly income minus ½ (living expenses)], thus: Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-34[17]) x [P4,950.00 ½ (P4,950.00)]
	GR No. 148627 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. JENELITO IBAÑEZ PUNO, J.
Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[68] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[69] By way of exception, testimonial evidence may suffice if the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[70] Cristeta testified that her father was self-employed and earned his living by harvesting corn twice a year for which he had a gross income of P5,000 per harvest. He also sold around 100 fighting cocks a year, for which he received a minimum of P500.00 per cock net of expenses or a total income of P50,000.00.[71] These statements remain unchallenged and uncontroverted by the appellants. Thus, the Court affirms that Belardo Pagapulan's gross annual income is P60,000.00. In People vs. Napalit,[72] we set the formula for computation of loss of earning capacity, thus: Net earning capacity 2/3 x (80 age of the victim at the time of his death) x a reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received by the heirs for support
	GR No. 128148 2004-02-16	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY MALINAO Y NOBE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, the heirs of Nestor are also entitled to damages for the loss of the latter's earning capacity. In fixing the indemnity, account is taken of the victim's actual income at the time of his death and his probable life expectancy.[54] Thus, in People vs. Napalit[55] the following formula was adopted by this Court:no
	GR Nos. 137949-52 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. GEORGE 'JORGE' BOLINGET Y BAGTAN PUNO, J.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the doctrine that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually take part in the homicide. The exception is when it is clearly shown that the accused endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing.[37]
	GR No. 121177 2003-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE ALMOGUERRA PER CURIAM
The foregoing circumstances when viewed in their entirety are as convincing as direct evidence and as such, negate the innocence of the appellants. Otherwise stated, the prosecution established beyond a shadow of a doubt, through circumstantial evidence, that both appellants conspired to commit the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The elements of this crime are: (a) the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, here used in its generic sense, is committed.[51]
	GR No. 132788 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. ISAIAS FERNANDEZ Y VERAS QUISUMBING, J.
In this case, the allegation of being part of a syndicate or that appellant and companions had formed part of a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of a syndicated or organized crime group,[83] was neither alleged nor proved by the prosecution. Hence, we agree that it was error for the trial court to sentence appellant under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659.
	GR No. 135029 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Although the amount of P100,000.00 for loss of income awarded by the trial court in favor of the heirs of the victim was not assailed by appellants, the amount awarded would have to be modified pursuant to the formula followed in People vs. Napalit,[75] to wit: Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-age of the victim at the time of his death) x a reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received by the heirs for support In the absence of proof of living expenses, the net income is deemed to be 50% of the gross income.[76]
	GR No. 120874 2003-07-31	TUGADE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to indemnity for loss of earning capacity, we take note of Exh. L-1[50] showing Henry Tugade's compensation to be Eight Hundred Three Pesos (P803.00) a month which amounts to an annual income of P9,636.00. He was 26 years old at the time of his death. Using the formula enunciated in People vs. Napalit,[51] we compute his lost earning capacity thus: Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-26) x [P9,636.00 - ½(P9,636.00)]

PEOPLE v. RICARDO NAPALIT Y PARAL