Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FELIPE ESPONILLA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 143487 2006-02-22	TOMMY FERRER v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[94] People v. Esponilla, 452 Phil. 517, 541 (2003).
	GR No. 151251 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. HOMER MAGDARAOG Y SALONA PANGANIBAN, J.
Lastly, loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded in the absence of competent proof therefor. "Compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages and requires due proof of the amount of the damage suffered. For loss of income due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the average income of the deceased. Also, the award for lost income refers to his net income; that is, his total income less his average expenses."[40] In this case, Henry Martirez gave only a bare self- serving testimony on the income of his brother. [41] No proof of the latter's expenses was adduced.
	GR Nos. 132310 & 143968-69 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. FELIPE DEMATE Y LOGANA QUISUMBING, J.
Alevosia or treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[54] For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution has the burden to prove that: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him.[55] We find that both elements have been proven in this case.
	GR No. 138612 2003-11-11	PEOPLE v. PERCIVAL GONZA Y BORRAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
Finally, the trial court was correct in not awarding damages for lost earnings. The prosecution merely relied on Zenaida Mortega's self-serving statement, that her husband was earning P5,000 per month as a farmhand. Compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages and requires due proof of the amount of the damage suffered. For loss of income due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income. Also, the award for lost income refers to the net income of the deceased, that is, his total income less average expenses. In this case, Zenaida merely gave a self-serving testimony of her husband's income. No proof of the victim's expenses was adduced; thus, there can be no reliable estimate of his lost income.[56]
	GR No. 138933 2003-10-28	PEOPLE v. JERRYVIE GUMAYAO Y DAHAO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000, which needs no other proof than the death of the victim.[62] The trial court was, likewise, correct in not awarding actual damages to the said heirs, considering that there were no receipts to support them.[63] The heirs are, nevertheless, entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.[64]
	GR No. 126119 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. PO3 GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP AZCUNA, J.
The rule is that conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. [28] In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. As appellants correctly argue, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. [29] The Court emphasizes, however, that said 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 commission of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. [30]