This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-07-07 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In its decision, the trial court, likewise, awarded the sum of P200,000.00 by way damages without specifying the amount of each item. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence relative to Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victims are entitled to the total amount of P100,000.00 by way of civil liability. Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[72] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 given by the court a quo to the heirs of the victim should be upheld as being consistent with current jurisprudence.[30] Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[31] However, the P50,000.00 awarded as actual damages for the hospitalization, medical and funeral expenses incurred by the family of the victim cannot be sustained for being unsubstantiated by receipts. | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Q. Mr. Witness, so you are telling us that the failure to present pictures of the wounds at the back of the deceased was because you forgot to instruct the photographer to do that? A. Yes, sir. [51] It is of no moment that in her sworn affidavit,[52] she omitted to mention the hackwounds which her father sustained at his back. Ex parte affidavits, which are often incomplete and inaccurate, need not prevail over credible statements of a witness on the stand, particularly when the defense had the full opportunity to cross-examine the witness,[53] such as in the case at bar. Moreover, even if she was a daughter of the victim, it does not follow that her testimony was biased. The trial court, having had the opportunity to observe the mien of the all the witnesses presented by the prosecution and the defense, chose to believe Cristeta's testimony over that of the appellants'. The unbending jurisprudence is that findings of trial courts on the matter of credibility of the witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. The private complainant's relationship with the victim does not disqualify her from testifying in the criminal case involving her relative or automatically sully her testimony with the stain of bias.[54] It would be unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone else other than the actual culprit himself. Nothing was shown to indicate in any way that the witness was impelled by improper motive in testifying against appellant.[55] In fact, appellant Jenelito Ibañez testified that they had a good relationship with Cristeta.[56] This underscores her credibility as a witness. | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim. Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[24] Likewise, the trial court was correct in not awarding actual, moral and exemplary damages because the prosecution failed to present competent evidence to prove the same. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss.[25] Further, in murder cases, moral damages cannot be granted in the absence of proof therefor[26] and exemplary damages without any aggravating circumstance.[27] | |||||