Lawyerly

GR No. 189301

2010-12-15

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, the deletion of the award of compensatory damages for unearned income by the CA in Criminal Case No. 95-17071 is proper. This Court pronounced in People v. Mallari:[57]

GR No. 176946

2010-11-15

CONSTANCIA G. TAMAYO v. ROSALIA ABAD SEÑORA

NACHURA, J.

To be credible, testimonial evidence should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[26] It should be positive and probable such that it is difficult for a rational mind not to find it credible.[27]

GR No. 186493

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO HERNANDO Y AQUINO

NACHURA, J.

There is, however, a need to modify the award of P208,000.00 as actual damages. Ver Espino testified that he spent P30,000.00 for the services rendered by the Baguio Memorial Chapel and P70,000.00 for the services rendered by Rosenda's Memorial and Casket Distributor when they brought the remains of the victim from Baguio City to Ilocos Norte. He also paid P20,000.00 for the musical performance of a band, P8,000.00 for the construction of the tomb, and P15,000.00 as daily food expenses for the six-day wake.[51] However, only the amounts of P70,000.00 and P30,000.00, or a total of P100,000.00, were duly receipted. It is well settled that only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have actually been expended in connection with the death of the victim should be allowed for actual damages.[52] The award made by the court a quo must, thus, be reduced correspondingly.

GR No. 186538

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Similarly, indemnification for Pedro's loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded. The general rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. As an exception, damages may be awarded in the absence of documentary evidence, provided there is testimony that the victim was either (1) self-employed and 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.[68] In the instant case, neither of the two exceptions applied. Luz testified that Pedro was earning an amount of not less than P350.00 per day as a carpenter. The earning of Pedro was above the minimum wage set by labor laws in his workplace at the time of his death.[69] This being the case, the general rule of requiring documentary evidence of his earning capacity finds application. Unfortunately for Pedro's heirs, no such proof was presented at all. The non-awarding of damages for loss of earning capacity by the Court of Appeals is therefore proper.

GR No. 177353

2008-11-28

PEOPLE v. PANCHO ENTRIALGO

CORONA, J.

With regard to Criminal Case No. 16095, in view of Section 2 of RA 9346,[9] appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Conformably with present jurisprudence, he is also ordered to pay the heirs of Benjamin P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.[10] He is further ordered to pay P50,000 as moral damages, as these are warranted under the circumstances. In cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded even in the absence of proof because an untimely death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[11]

GR NO. 171272

2007-06-07

PEOPLE v. LEOSON DELA CRUZ Y ECHECHE

QUISUMBING, J.

On the other hand, appellant's defense suggesting that Pelagio, for no motive or reason at all, would suddenly harm and violently kill his wife is highly improbable. Appellant insinuates that Pelagio was dazed, red-eyed and beside himself. However, Pelagio's testimony was corroborated by his daughter when she heard her father's cry for help and she saw dela Cruz with a knife. Appellant's testimony that Pelagio got a knife from a nearby sink had been more than contradicted by Rebecca that the sink was nowhere in the garage but in the generator/engine room. Rebecca's testimony on this point was corroborated by a police officer who had no reason to lie. Testimonial evidence, to be credible, should come not only from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible in itself, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[46]

GR NO. 168051

2006-09-27

PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant was already apprehended for the hacking incident by the barangay officials of Lipa City just before he was turned over to the police by a certain Tomas Dimacuha.[54] Assuming that appellant had indeed surrendered to the authorities, the same was not made spontaneously.[55] Immediately after the hacking incident, appellant, instead of proceeding to the barangay or police, went to his brother, Sherman Beltran, in Bauan, Batangas, and the next day, to his sister in Lipa City. It took him three long days to surrender to the police authorities.[56] Moreover, the flight of appellant and his act of hiding until he was apprehended by the barangay officials are circumstances highly inconsistent with the spontaneity that characterizes the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.[57]

GR NO. 163351

2005-06-21

ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

With respect to indemnification for loss of earning capacity, the Court, in the case of People vs. Mallari,[14] enunciated:The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages therefore may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence if there is testimony that the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice is 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.[15]

GR No. 155256

2004-07-30

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MEDINA

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

With regard to the award for damages, we find the award for actual damages proper, the expenses incurred by the heirs of the deceased having been duly proven by receipts. However, we reduce the same to P48,175 from P50,000, the amount which had been substantiated by official receipts for hospitalization and funeral expenses.[24] Only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have actually been expended in connection with the death of the victim should be allowed for actual damages.[25] The award for civil indemnity at P50,000 is also proper, as no other proof is necessary other than the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the appellant.

GR No. 138386-87

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The trial court awarded the heirs of Dominador Castro the amount of P159,960.00 by reason of the victim's loss of earning capacity. The general rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity.[51] By way of exception, damages may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence provided that there is testimony that 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.[52] In the present case, no documentary evidence was presented to prove the claim of Dominador's heirs for damages by reason of loss of earning capacity. However, Adoracion testified that at the time of his death, Dominador was 60 years old[53]; his occupation was farming, carpentry and making of banana fiber; and, he earned not less than P1,000.00 a month.[54] We find Adoracion's testimony sufficient to justify the award of damages for loss of earning capacity.

GR Nos. 147674-75

2004-03-17

PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

of the victim's heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[74] We shall also award in favor of the heirs of Demetrio Jr. exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 in view of the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery.[75]

GR No. 139297

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. RENATO

PUNO, J.

In the instant case, the circumstances enumerated by the trial court establish an unbroken chain of events showing the complicity of appellants and no other in the killing of victim Jovito Caspillo. Indeed, the case of the prosecution is woven principally around the testimonies of witnesses Erlinda Escosio and Cherry Francisco whose testimonies were sufficiently tested and found credible on the crucible of cross-examination. Notably, as correctly observed by the court a quo, appellants failed to demonstrate ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify against them. Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for the witnesses to prevaricate, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[8]

GR No. 144598

2004-02-06

PEOPLE v. RANIL DUETES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the purpose. 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.[44] In the case at bar, however, no witness was called to testify as to the victim's income.

GR No. 140618

2003-12-10

PEOPLE v. BERNARDO SARA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the purpose. 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.[88] In the case at bar, however, while the victim's wife testified that the victim earned P200.00 every market day[89] as well as 120 sacks a year from cultivating a 2-hectare piece of land,[90] she did not indicate the number of market days in a year nor identify the crops which her husband harvested or give the value thereof. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[91] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[92]

GR No. 141217

2003-09-26

PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO DUBAN Y DOMINGO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the purpose. 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.[29] In the case at bar, however, while the victim's brother testified that the victim earned P300.00, he did not indicate whether the same referred to the victim's hourly, daily, monthly or annual income.[30]

GR No. 152604

2003-09-18

PEOPLE v. LEONCIO PEDRIGAL Y SIMBALLANA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. It however, failed to award moral damages and exemplary damages. An award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is in line with current jurisprudence. In cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded even in the absence of proof because an untimely and violent death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[18] Considering the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00 are likewise awarded.[19]

GR No. 141120

2003-09-17

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have actually been expended in connection with the death of the victim should, however, be allowed as bases of the award of actual damages.[29] A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when, as in the case of the things appearing in the itemized list, they should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions,[30] especially given their value of P29,070.00. Hence, the award for actual damages must be reduced to P34,800.00.

	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, the deletion of the award of compensatory damages for unearned income by the CA in Criminal Case No. 95-17071 is proper. This Court pronounced in People v. Mallari:[57]
	GR No. 176946 2010-11-15	CONSTANCIA G. TAMAYO v. ROSALIA ABAD SEÑORA NACHURA, J.
To be credible, testimonial evidence should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[26] It should be positive and probable such that it is difficult for a rational mind not to find it credible.[27]
	GR No. 186493 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO HERNANDO Y AQUINO NACHURA, J.
There is, however, a need to modify the award of P208,000.00 as actual damages. Ver Espino testified that he spent P30,000.00 for the services rendered by the Baguio Memorial Chapel and P70,000.00 for the services rendered by Rosenda's Memorial and Casket Distributor when they brought the remains of the victim from Baguio City to Ilocos Norte. He also paid P20,000.00 for the musical performance of a band, P8,000.00 for the construction of the tomb, and P15,000.00 as daily food expenses for the six-day wake.[51] However, only the amounts of P70,000.00 and P30,000.00, or a total of P100,000.00, were duly receipted. It is well settled that only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have actually been expended in connection with the death of the victim should be allowed for actual damages.[52] The award made by the court a quo must, thus, be reduced correspondingly.
	GR No. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Similarly, indemnification for Pedro's loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded. The general rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. As an exception, damages may be awarded in the absence of documentary evidence, provided there is testimony that the victim was either (1) self-employed and 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.[68] In the instant case, neither of the two exceptions applied. Luz testified that Pedro was earning an amount of not less than P350.00 per day as a carpenter. The earning of Pedro was above the minimum wage set by labor laws in his workplace at the time of his death.[69] This being the case, the general rule of requiring documentary evidence of his earning capacity finds application. Unfortunately for Pedro's heirs, no such proof was presented at all. The non-awarding of damages for loss of earning capacity by the Court of Appeals is therefore proper.
	GR No. 177353 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. PANCHO ENTRIALGO CORONA, J.
With regard to Criminal Case No. 16095, in view of Section 2 of RA 9346,[9] appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Conformably with present jurisprudence, he is also ordered to pay the heirs of Benjamin P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.[10] He is further ordered to pay P50,000 as moral damages, as these are warranted under the circumstances. In cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded even in the absence of proof because an untimely death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[11]
	GR NO. 171272 2007-06-07	PEOPLE v. LEOSON DELA CRUZ Y ECHECHE QUISUMBING, J.
On the other hand, appellant's defense suggesting that Pelagio, for no motive or reason at all, would suddenly harm and violently kill his wife is highly improbable. Appellant insinuates that Pelagio was dazed, red-eyed and beside himself. However, Pelagio's testimony was corroborated by his daughter when she heard her father's cry for help and she saw dela Cruz with a knife. Appellant's testimony that Pelagio got a knife from a nearby sink had been more than contradicted by Rebecca that the sink was nowhere in the garage but in the generator/engine room. Rebecca's testimony on this point was corroborated by a police officer who had no reason to lie. Testimonial evidence, to be credible, should come not only from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible in itself, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[46]
	GR NO. 168051 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant was already apprehended for the hacking incident by the barangay officials of Lipa City just before he was turned over to the police by a certain Tomas Dimacuha.[54] Assuming that appellant had indeed surrendered to the authorities, the same was not made spontaneously.[55] Immediately after the hacking incident, appellant, instead of proceeding to the barangay or police, went to his brother, Sherman Beltran, in Bauan, Batangas, and the next day, to his sister in Lipa City. It took him three long days to surrender to the police authorities.[56] Moreover, the flight of appellant and his act of hiding until he was apprehended by the barangay officials are circumstances highly inconsistent with the spontaneity that characterizes the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.[57]
	GR NO. 163351 2005-06-21	ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
With respect to indemnification for loss of earning capacity, the Court, in the case of People vs. Mallari,[14] enunciated:The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages therefore may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence if there is testimony that the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice is 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.[15]
	GR No. 155256 2004-07-30	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MEDINA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
With regard to the award for damages, we find the award for actual damages proper, the expenses incurred by the heirs of the deceased having been duly proven by receipts. However, we reduce the same to P48,175 from P50,000, the amount which had been substantiated by official receipts for hospitalization and funeral expenses.[24] Only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have actually been expended in connection with the death of the victim should be allowed for actual damages.[25] The award for civil indemnity at P50,000 is also proper, as no other proof is necessary other than the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the appellant.
	GR No. 138386-87 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The trial court awarded the heirs of Dominador Castro the amount of P159,960.00 by reason of the victim's loss of earning capacity. The general rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity.[51] By way of exception, damages may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence provided that there is testimony that 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.[52] In the present case, no documentary evidence was presented to prove the claim of Dominador's heirs for damages by reason of loss of earning capacity. However, Adoracion testified that at the time of his death, Dominador was 60 years old[53]; his occupation was farming, carpentry and making of banana fiber; and, he earned not less than P1,000.00 a month.[54] We find Adoracion's testimony sufficient to justify the award of damages for loss of earning capacity.
	GR Nos. 147674-75 2004-03-17	PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN DAVIDE JR., C.J.
of the victim's heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[74] We shall also award in favor of the heirs of Demetrio Jr. exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 in view of the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery.[75]
	GR No. 139297 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. RENATO PUNO, J.
In the instant case, the circumstances enumerated by the trial court establish an unbroken chain of events showing the complicity of appellants and no other in the killing of victim Jovito Caspillo. Indeed, the case of the prosecution is woven principally around the testimonies of witnesses Erlinda Escosio and Cherry Francisco whose testimonies were sufficiently tested and found credible on the crucible of cross-examination. Notably, as correctly observed by the court a quo, appellants failed to demonstrate ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify against them. Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for the witnesses to prevaricate, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[8]
	GR No. 144598 2004-02-06	PEOPLE v. RANIL DUETES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the purpose. 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.[44] In the case at bar, however, no witness was called to testify as to the victim's income.
	GR No. 140618 2003-12-10	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO SARA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the purpose. 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.[88] In the case at bar, however, while the victim's wife testified that the victim earned P200.00 every market day[89] as well as 120 sacks a year from cultivating a 2-hectare piece of land,[90] she did not indicate the number of market days in a year nor identify the crops which her husband harvested or give the value thereof. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[91] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[92]
	GR No. 141217 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO DUBAN Y DOMINGO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the purpose. 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.[29] In the case at bar, however, while the victim's brother testified that the victim earned P300.00, he did not indicate whether the same referred to the victim's hourly, daily, monthly or annual income.[30]
	GR No. 152604 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. LEONCIO PEDRIGAL Y SIMBALLANA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. It however, failed to award moral damages and exemplary damages. An award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is in line with current jurisprudence. In cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded even in the absence of proof because an untimely and violent death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[18] Considering the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00 are likewise awarded.[19]
	GR No. 141120 2003-09-17	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have actually been expended in connection with the death of the victim should, however, be allowed as bases of the award of actual damages.[29] A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when, as in the case of the things appearing in the itemized list, they should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions,[30] especially given their value of P29,070.00. Hence, the award for actual damages must be reduced to P34,800.00.

PEOPLE v. RUFINO MALLARI Y ILAG