Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ANOD

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 204866 2015-01-21	RUKS KONSULT v. ADWORLD SIGN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight by the Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record.[25] Absent any exceptions to this rule such as when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances that, if considered, would change the outcome of the case[26] such findings must stand.
	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article 65[50] of the RPC.[51] In the present case, the amount involved is P98,000.00, which exceeds P22,000.00, thus, the maximum penalty imposable should be within the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor. Article 315 also states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every additional P10,000.00 defrauded in excess of P22,000.00, but in no case shall the total penalty which may be imposed exceed 20 years.
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
Appellant Al attempts to evade criminal liability by alleging that he was only forced to participate in the commission of the crime because he and his family were threatened to be killed. Al's defense fails to impress us. Under Article 12 [17] of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom. [18] To avail of this exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that committed. [19] For such defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. [20]
	GR No. 189091 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. ARMAN APACIBLE Y RODRIGUEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court thus affirms the appellate court's Decision, with modification, however. The Court reduces the amount of civil indemnity awarded by the appellate court from P75,000 to P50,000, as determined by the trial court. People v. Anod[16] explains why the award of P75,000 as civil indemnity lies only in cases where the proper imposable penalty is death, viz: It is worth stressing that, at the outset, the appellant, together with Lumbayan, was sentenced by the RTC to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus, the CA's reliance on our ruling in People v. dela Cruz was misplaced. In dela Cruz, this Court cited our ruling in People v. Tubongbanua, wherein we held that the civil indemnity imposed should be P75,000.00. However, the instant case does not share the same factual milieu as dela Cruz and Tubongbanua. In the said cases, at the outset, the accused were sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty on June 24, 2006, the penalty meted to the accused was reduced to reclusion perpetua. This jurisprudential trend was followed in the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Generoso Rolida y Moreno, etc., where this Court also increased the civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Based on the foregoing disquisitions and the current applicable jurisprudence, we hereby reduce the civil indemnity awarded herein to P50,000.00. x x x (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
	GR No. 177573 2010-07-07	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO ASIS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We now come to the award of damages. When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.[26]
	GR No. 188320 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. RIO TIBON Y DEISO VELASCO JR., J.
The Solicitor General recommended the reduction of civil indemnity from PhP75,000 to PhP50,000. However, recent jurisprudence pegs civil indemnity in the amount of PhP75,000,[27] which is automatically granted to the offended party, or his/her heirs in case of the former's death, without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of murder, homicide, parricide and rape.[28] People v. Regalario[29] has explained that the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.
	GR No. 177983 2010-03-30	PEOPLE v. DANTE JADAP LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.[26]