Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GREGORIO GERAL Y FERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 177827 2009-03-30	PEOPLE v. ANSELMO BERONDO VELASCO JR., J.
The CA also properly awarded civil indemnity as such is given without need of proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of accused-appellant's responsibility for it.[18] The trial court, however, failed to award moral damages. Moral damages are awarded without need of further proof other than the fact of the killing.[19] Thus, PhP 50,000 in moral damages is additionally awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim.
	GR No. 177356 2008-11-20	PEOPLE v. JOHBERT AMODIA Y BABA VELASCO JR., J.
As regards the award of damages, it was proper for the trial court to grant civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of the victim. Civil indemnity in homicide and murder cases requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of accused-appellant's responsibility for it.[17] The trial court, however, failed to award moral damages. Moral damages is granted without need of further proof other than the fact of the killing.[18] Thus, moral damages of PhP 50,000 is additionally awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim.
	GR No. 177571 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. DEAN MARTIN Y SARVIDA VELASCO JR., J.
As regards the award of damages, we find that the CA correctly awarded PhP 25,000 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages in a lesser amount.[19] Also, it was proper to award moral damages because such is granted without need of further proof other than the fact of the killing;[20] and exemplary damages because the crime was attended by an aggravating circumstance.[21] The appellate court, however, deleted the award of civil indemnity. The grant of civil indemnity in murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility therefor.[22] Thus, civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 is additionally granted in favor of the heirs of the victim.
	GR No. 152221 2003-08-25	PEOPLE v. JACINTO ALVAREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
T: Karapatan mo ang magsawalang kibo o huwag sumagot sa mga itatanong sa iyo, ito ba ay naiintindihan mo? S: Opo, naiintindihan ko. T: Karapatan mo din ang magkaroon ng abogado na sarili mong pili upon pagpayuhan ka sa kasong ito, ito ba ay naiintindihan mo? S: Opo, mayroon po akong abogado na sarili kong pili. T: Na ano man ang sasabihin mo dito sa imbestigasyon na ito ay maaaring gamitin laban sa iyo sa alin mang hukuman dito sa Pilipinas, ito ba ay nauunawaan mo? S: Yes, sir, naiintindihan ko ito. T: Naririto ngayon sa harap mo ang ilang peryodista, mga police reporter sa radyo at TV at si Atty. Orlando Salatandre Jr. Kilala mo ba si Atty. Salatandre Jr.? S: Opo. Siya po ang pinili kong abogado sa kasong ito.[12] The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on appellant. Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed on any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of persons when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.[13] Since there was no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed.[14]