Lawyerly

GR No. 185726

2009-10-16

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The two courts below made no pronouncement as to the loss of earning capacity. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven. The certificate of employment which did not state the victim's salary is not enough proof for lost income to be recovered. There must likewise be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average income. An award for loss of earning capacity refers to the net income of the deceased, i.e., his total income net of expenses.[39]

GR No. 141217

2003-09-26

PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO DUBAN Y DOMINGO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[31] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[32]

GR No. 148912

2003-09-10

PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS

PANGANIBAN, J.

The trial court awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000, but failed to award P50,000 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim. Moral damages cannot be granted in the absence of proof therefor.[47] Unlike in rape cases, this type of award is not automatically given in murder or homicide. The prosecution was, however, able to prove actual damages in the sum of P28,650. The award of exemplary damages should be omitted considering that no aggravating circumstance was duly proven.[48]

GR No. 137042

2003-06-17

PEOPLE v. FELIPE MUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, appellants shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven.[30] As shown by the victim's service record,[31] he was holding the position of Supervising Civil Engineering Draftsman at the Department of Public Works and Highway (Region V, Legazpi City) when he died at the age of 30 on July 18, 1988.[32] His salary then was P58.21 per day, hence, his gross annual income would be P20,955.60. Using the American Expectancy Table of Mortality, the award of damages representing loss of earning capacity should be P349,225.07, computed as follows:

GR No. 126281

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO

AZCUNA, J.

The following factors should be considered in determining the compensable amount of lost earnings: (1) the number of years for which the victim would have otherwise lived; and (2) the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased. Life expectancy is computed using the formula adopted in the American Combined Experience Table of Mortality: 2/3 x (80 - age at death). The rate of loss is arrived at by multiplying life expectancy by the net earnings of the deceased, i.e., the total earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental expenses. The net earning is ordinarily pegged at fifty percent of the gross earnings.[74] Evidence on record reveals that the victim died at the age of 41,[75] and that he was earning an annual gross income of P37,432 from his employment with NALCO.[76] The widow's testimony regarding the victim's income from his sideline cannot be considered for lack of the necessary unbiased proof.[77] Thus, applying the above-cited formula, appellant should pay the victim's heirs P486,616 as shown by the following computation:2/3 [80-41(age at the time of death)] = 26 (life expectancy)

GR No. 138470

2003-04-01

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO GARCIA Y CRUZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Lastly, we find the court a quo's award of P250,000.00 for loss of earning capacity to be without basis. Nancy testified that her husband Wilfredo was earning P600.00 a day prior to his death,[36] however, she failed to produce evidence to substantiate her claim. As held in the case of People v. Panabang,[37] a self-serving statement is not enough; the indemnification for loss of earning capacity must be duly proven.

GR No. 149492

2003-01-20

JOEL LUCES v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the conviction of the petitioner. A careful review of the records shows that the positive identification of petitioner by Dante Reginio is convincing and worthy of credence. Finding no ill-motive that would impel said witness to testify falsely against the petitioner, the trial court's assessment of his credibility must be affirmed.[21] The settled rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might well affect the result of the case. [22] We find no cogent reason to depart from this doctrine in the case at bar.

GR No. 146100

2002-11-13

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY LOTERONO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

proof to justify an award as it is, at best, self-serving. While there was additional testimonial evidence by the victim's mother on his income,[79] the same can no longer serve as basis for lost earnings, in the light of our recent ruling in People v. Panabang,[80] and reiterated in People v. Cuenca.[81] There we held that indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven; and a self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. For lost income to be recovered, there must be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average, not just gross income.[82] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23 is MODIFIED as follows: 1.] Accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Homicide as defined and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as

GR No. 140639

2002-09-27

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH BARTOLO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime. Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, in addition to the death indemnity, the accused shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. In People v. Panabang,[38] the Court held that indemnification for loss of earning

GR No. 146687

2002-08-22

PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

the light of our recent ruling in People v. Panabang,[57] and reiterated in People v. Cuenca.[58] There we held that indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven; and a self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. For lost income to be recovered, there must be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average, not just gross, income. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44, in Criminal Case No. 96-01443-D is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Bonnie R. Rabanal is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide and is sentenced to

GR No. 143765

2002-07-30

PEOPLE v. GILBERT DADIVO Y MENDOZA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

P4,500.00 representing funeral services was duly receipted. On the other hand, Sinamar dela Cruz, Teodorico dela Cruz's widow, testified that her husband was earning P26,000.00 per annum as a farmer and part-time construction worker. In People v. Panabang, [16] we ruled: Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven. A self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. xxx [F]or lost income to be recovered, there must likewise be an unbiased proof of the deceased's

GR Nos. 134072-73

2002-06-10

PEOPLE v. CONSTANCIO CANDIDO Y COLLARGA

KAPUNAN, J.

Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that treachery or alevosia exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[51] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[52]

GR No. 140545

2002-05-29

PEOPLE v. IRENEO GODOY

KAPUNAN, J.

The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Consistent with recent jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00.[39] However, the court cannot rely on conjecture or guesswork on the fact and extent of damages.[40] The amount of actual damages must be proved with a reasonable degree certainty[41] and must be premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[42] Hence, the award of actual damages must be reduced to P26,500.00 which is the amount substantiated by receipts.[43] Anent the amount of lost income, the formula for its computation is -

GR No. 135701

2002-05-09

PEOPLE v. ELBERT CALLET Y SABANAL

PUNO, J.

The Information charged that evident premeditation and treachery attended the commission of the crime. The evidence failed to prove evident premeditation. Evident premeditation requires proof of: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[18] The records show that the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to prove these elements.

GR Nos. 140901-02

2002-05-09

PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA Y DOLOROSO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The award of P1,960,000.00 for loss of earning capacity has no basis. The trial court based said award on the bare testimony of Jose Zeta III, the victim's son. No documentary evidence was presented to support such award. Hence, it must be deleted conformably with this Court's ruling in People v. Panabang:[18]

GR No. 143819

2002-01-29

PEOPLE v. GERRY CUENCA Y MEDRANO

PANGANIBAN, J.

We also find the court a quo's award of P4,800,000 for loss of earning capacity to be improper. True, in People v. Verde,[33] we granted an award for the loss of earning capacity to the heirs of the deceased despite the absence of documentary evidence to substantiate such claim. We deemed the testimony of the victim's wife sufficient to establish the basis for the grant. However, the new ruling in People v. Panabang[34] modifies this principle and now precludes an award for loss of earning capacity without adequate proof. The bare testimony of the brother of the deceased Felicisimo Castillo that, at the time of his death, Wilfredo Castillo was earning P250.00 daily as carpenter[35] is not sufficient proof.

	GR No. 185726 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. DARWIN BERNABE Y GARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The two courts below made no pronouncement as to the loss of earning capacity. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven. The certificate of employment which did not state the victim's salary is not enough proof for lost income to be recovered. There must likewise be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average income. An award for loss of earning capacity refers to the net income of the deceased, i.e., his total income net of expenses.[39]
	GR No. 141217 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO DUBAN Y DOMINGO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[31] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[32]
	GR No. 148912 2003-09-10	PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS PANGANIBAN, J.
The trial court awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000, but failed to award P50,000 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim. Moral damages cannot be granted in the absence of proof therefor.[47] Unlike in rape cases, this type of award is not automatically given in murder or homicide. The prosecution was, however, able to prove actual damages in the sum of P28,650. The award of exemplary damages should be omitted considering that no aggravating circumstance was duly proven.[48]
	GR No. 137042 2003-06-17	PEOPLE v. FELIPE MUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, appellants shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven.[30] As shown by the victim's service record,[31] he was holding the position of Supervising Civil Engineering Draftsman at the Department of Public Works and Highway (Region V, Legazpi City) when he died at the age of 30 on July 18, 1988.[32] His salary then was P58.21 per day, hence, his gross annual income would be P20,955.60. Using the American Expectancy Table of Mortality, the award of damages representing loss of earning capacity should be P349,225.07, computed as follows:
	GR No. 126281 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO AZCUNA, J.
The following factors should be considered in determining the compensable amount of lost earnings: (1) the number of years for which the victim would have otherwise lived; and (2) the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased. Life expectancy is computed using the formula adopted in the American Combined Experience Table of Mortality: 2/3 x (80 - age at death). The rate of loss is arrived at by multiplying life expectancy by the net earnings of the deceased, i.e., the total earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental expenses. The net earning is ordinarily pegged at fifty percent of the gross earnings.[74] Evidence on record reveals that the victim died at the age of 41,[75] and that he was earning an annual gross income of P37,432 from his employment with NALCO.[76] The widow's testimony regarding the victim's income from his sideline cannot be considered for lack of the necessary unbiased proof.[77] Thus, applying the above-cited formula, appellant should pay the victim's heirs P486,616 as shown by the following computation:2/3 [80-41(age at the time of death)] = 26 (life expectancy)
	GR No. 138470 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO GARCIA Y CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Lastly, we find the court a quo's award of P250,000.00 for loss of earning capacity to be without basis. Nancy testified that her husband Wilfredo was earning P600.00 a day prior to his death,[36] however, she failed to produce evidence to substantiate her claim. As held in the case of People v. Panabang,[37] a self-serving statement is not enough; the indemnification for loss of earning capacity must be duly proven.
	GR No. 149492 2003-01-20	JOEL LUCES v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the conviction of the petitioner. A careful review of the records shows that the positive identification of petitioner by Dante Reginio is convincing and worthy of credence. Finding no ill-motive that would impel said witness to testify falsely against the petitioner, the trial court's assessment of his credibility must be affirmed.[21] The settled rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might well affect the result of the case. [22] We find no cogent reason to depart from this doctrine in the case at bar.
	GR No. 146100 2002-11-13	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY LOTERONO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
proof to justify an award as it is, at best, self-serving. While there was additional testimonial evidence by the victim's mother on his income,[79] the same can no longer serve as basis for lost earnings, in the light of our recent ruling in People v. Panabang,[80] and reiterated in People v. Cuenca.[81] There we held that indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven; and a self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. For lost income to be recovered, there must be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average, not just gross income.[82] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23 is MODIFIED as follows: 1.] Accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Homicide as defined and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as
	GR No. 140639 2002-09-27	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH BARTOLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime. Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, in addition to the death indemnity, the accused shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. In People v. Panabang,[38] the Court held that indemnification for loss of earning
	GR No. 146687 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
the light of our recent ruling in People v. Panabang,[57] and reiterated in People v. Cuenca.[58] There we held that indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven; and a self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. For lost income to be recovered, there must be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average, not just gross, income. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44, in Criminal Case No. 96-01443-D is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Bonnie R. Rabanal is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide and is sentenced to
	GR No. 143765 2002-07-30	PEOPLE v. GILBERT DADIVO Y MENDOZA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
P4,500.00 representing funeral services was duly receipted. On the other hand, Sinamar dela Cruz, Teodorico dela Cruz's widow, testified that her husband was earning P26,000.00 per annum as a farmer and part-time construction worker. In People v. Panabang, [16] we ruled: Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven. A self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. xxx [F]or lost income to be recovered, there must likewise be an unbiased proof of the deceased's
	GR Nos. 134072-73 2002-06-10	PEOPLE v. CONSTANCIO CANDIDO Y COLLARGA KAPUNAN, J.
Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that treachery or alevosia exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[51] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[52]
	GR No. 140545 2002-05-29	PEOPLE v. IRENEO GODOY KAPUNAN, J.
The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Consistent with recent jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00.[39] However, the court cannot rely on conjecture or guesswork on the fact and extent of damages.[40] The amount of actual damages must be proved with a reasonable degree certainty[41] and must be premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[42] Hence, the award of actual damages must be reduced to P26,500.00 which is the amount substantiated by receipts.[43] Anent the amount of lost income, the formula for its computation is -
	GR No. 135701 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. ELBERT CALLET Y SABANAL PUNO, J.
The Information charged that evident premeditation and treachery attended the commission of the crime. The evidence failed to prove evident premeditation. Evident premeditation requires proof of: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[18] The records show that the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to prove these elements.
	GR Nos. 140901-02 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA Y DOLOROSO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The award of P1,960,000.00 for loss of earning capacity has no basis. The trial court based said award on the bare testimony of Jose Zeta III, the victim's son. No documentary evidence was presented to support such award. Hence, it must be deleted conformably with this Court's ruling in People v. Panabang:[18]
	GR No. 143819 2002-01-29	PEOPLE v. GERRY CUENCA Y MEDRANO PANGANIBAN, J.
We also find the court a quo's award of P4,800,000 for loss of earning capacity to be improper. True, in People v. Verde,[33] we granted an award for the loss of earning capacity to the heirs of the deceased despite the absence of documentary evidence to substantiate such claim. We deemed the testimony of the victim's wife sufficient to establish the basis for the grant. However, the new ruling in People v. Panabang[34] modifies this principle and now precludes an award for loss of earning capacity without adequate proof. The bare testimony of the brother of the deceased Felicisimo Castillo that, at the time of his death, Wilfredo Castillo was earning P250.00 daily as carpenter[35] is not sufficient proof.

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO PANABANG Y BUSNAG