This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It could be true that Gepayo did not retreat to a safer place during the shooting incident and did not render assistance to his wounded employer. To appellants, this reaction is contrary to human nature. We believe otherwise. This imputed omission, to our mind, does not necessarily diminish the plausibility of Gepayo's story let alone destroy his credibility. To us, his reaction is within the bounds of expected human behavior. Surely, he was afraid that they might kill him because the malefactors were then armed with guns.[25] Thus, he would not dare attempt to stop them and stake his life in the process. At any rate, it is settled "that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience. Witnessing a crime is an unusual experience which elicits different reactions from the witnesses and for which no clear-cut standard form of behavior can be drawn."[26] | |||||
|
2010-06-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In line with current jurisprudence, if the death penalty would have been imposed if not for the proscription in RA 9346, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be P75,000.00.[23] As compensatory damages, the award of P2,400.00 for the burial lot of the victim must be deleted since this expense was not supported by receipts.[24] However, the heirs are entitled to an award of temperate damages in the sum of P25,000.00.[25] The existence of one aggravating circumstance merits the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. Thus, the award of exemplary damages is proper. However, it must be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[26] Moral damages must also be increased from P25,000.00 to P75,000.00.[27] Moreover, the appellant is ordered to return the stolen items that were not recovered. Should this no longer be possible, there must be restitution in the total amount of P5,050.00 representing the cash contained in the victim's wallet, as well as the value of the wrist watch, the ring, the motorcycle and sidecar taken by the appellant and his co-accused. | |||||
|
2010-03-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We note that both the trial court and the CA awarded the heirs of the victim only the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[23] we also award the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. Further, we also award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to our ruling in People v. Angeles[24] where we held that "under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, (in this case, abuse of superior strength). This is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. The imposition of exemplary damages is also justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code in order to set an example for the public good." In addition, and in lieu of actual damages, we also award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[25] | |||||