This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2006-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Apropos the civil liabilities of accused-appellant, current jurisprudence[58] dictate that the civil indemnity due from accused-appellant is P50,000.00 for the death of each of the victims.[59] However, the monetary awards for moral and exemplary damages given by the Court of Appeals, both in the amount of P50,000.00, due the heirs of the victims, have to be deleted for lack of material basis. Similarly, the Court of Appeals award of exemplary damages to Rodolfo Movilla in the amount of P50,000.00 for the destruction of his house, also has to be deleted, but in this instance for being improper. Moral damages cannot be award by this Court in the absence of proof of mental or physical suffering on the part of the heirs of the victims.[60] Concerning the award of exemplary damages, the reason for the deletion being that no aggravating circumstance had been alleged and proved by the prosecution in the case at bar.[61] | |||||
|
2004-02-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| By challenging his identification by the witnesses of the prosecution, as one of the assailants of the victim, the appellant attacks the credibility of said witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies. However, when the issue of credibility of witnesses is in question, the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect, precisely because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they testify, unless the trial court has overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts of substance which if considered might affect the result of the case.[11] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We affirm the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, which is granted without need of proof other than the commission of a crime.[30] Likewise, the trial court correctly awarded the sum of P20,000 as actual damages, which was admitted by the appellant.[31] We cannot award moral damages in the absence of proof of mental or physical suffering on the part of the heirs of the victim.[32] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly ordered the appellant to pay to the heirs of the victim Ildefonso Balite the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, in accord with current jurisprudence.[55] We cannot, however, award moral damages in the absence of proof of mental or physical suffering on the part of the heirs of the victim.[56] Lastly, given the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, an award of exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P25,000,[57] in accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code,[58] is in order. | |||||
|
2003-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the foregoing acts show unanimity in design, intent, and execution of the attack on the part of appellants. They performed specific acts with closeness and coordination as unmistakably to indicate a common purpose and design to bring about the death of the victim. Conspiracy among appellants was thus established with moral certainty. All the conspirators are therefore answerable as co-principals regardless of their degree of participation, for in the contemplation of the law, the act of one becomes the act of all. It matters not who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow on the victim. [32] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish conspiracy, direct evidence is not required. It is not even essential that there be proof of the agreement to commit the felony. Proof of concerted action of the accused before, during and after the crime which demonstrates their unity of design and objective is sufficient. This Court had consistently ruled that conspiracy may be inferred when by their acts, two or more persons proceed towards the accomplishment of the same felonious objective, with each doing his act, so that their acts though seemingly independent were in fact connected, showing a closeness of former association and concurrence of sentiment. To hold one as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be shown that he performed an overt act in pursuance of or furtherance of the conspiracy, although the acts performed might have been distinct and separate. This overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of their degree of participation, for in the contemplation of the law, the act of one becomes the act of all. It matters not who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow to the victim.[22] | |||||
|
2003-09-03 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We cannot award moral damages in the absence of proof of mental or physical suffering on the part of the heirs of the victim.[41] | |||||