This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-02-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We hold that the CA and the RTC should have further granted moral damages which were different from the death indemnity.[27] The death indemnity compensated the loss of life due to crime, but appropriate and reasonable moral damages would justly assuage the mental anguish and emotional sufferings of the surviving family of the victim.[28] Although mental anguish and emotional sufferings of the surviving heirs were not quantifiable with mathematical precision, the Court must nonetheless strive to set an amount that would restore the heirs of Bolanon to their moral status quo ante. Given the circumstances, the amount of P50,000.00 is reasonable as moral damages, which, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[29] we are bound to award despite the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' mental anguish and emotional suffering. The rationale for doing so rested on human nature and experience having shown that: xxx a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them.[30] | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In a criminal case, an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. Issues whether raised or not by the parties may be resolved by the appellate court.[12] When petitioner appealed her conviction, the dismissal of the interest checks by the lower court did not preclude the Court of Appeals from reviewing such decision and modifying her civil liability. The appeal conferred upon the appellate court full jurisdiction and rendered it competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty and cite the proper provision of the penal law.[13] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review[12] and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are assigned as errors or not.[13] | |||||
|
2003-05-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-35) x [P108,000 ½ (P108,000)] = 2/3 x (45) x P54,000 = 35.33 x P54,000 = P1, 620,000 We delete the twenty five thousand peso-award for actual expenses in the absence of requisite proof,[37] but in lieu thereof, P10,000 is awarded as nominal damages.[38] As for moral damages, pursuant to current jurisprudence, the amount should be increased to P50,000.[39] The award of P50,000 as death indemnity to the heirs of the deceased is retained as well as the award of P20,000 as exemplary damages, which we find to be sufficient and justified by the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In view of the testimony of Lita Balasabas that she suffered mental anguish for the death of her sons, Syrel and Exor, we find that the award of moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 (P50,000.00 for the death of each set of heirs of the victims) is proper and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[53] | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Regarding the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly disregarded the attendance thereof in the instant case. Treachery (alevosia) is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.[26] In the case at bar, the victim was not deprived of a real chance to defend himself. Note that the attack in the instant case was frontal and that the victim sustained a defensive wound on his left palm.[27] Moreover, the presence of the victim's companions, Dante Reginio and Nelson Magbanua, reveals that the victim was not completely helpless. Neither was there sufficient evidence to establish that appellant consciously adopted the mode of attack. The meeting between the victim and the petitioner was a casual encounter. Absent evidence showing that petitioner deliberately planned or adopted the mode of execution of the offense, treachery cannot be appreciated.[28] | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| without need of any evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[32] As for moral damages, the amount should be reduced to P50,000 also in accordance with existing jurisprudence.[33] The award of P10,000 as attorney's fees is sufficient and justified. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Tarlac, Branch 65, in Criminal Case No. 9776, convicting appellant Rodolfo Concepcion of the crime of murder, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is found guilty of the crime of | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On this score, we find merit in accused-appellant's contention. Treachery or alevosia is committed when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.[9] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[10] | |||||