Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROEL ARBALATE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 195244 2015-06-22	PEOPLE v. ALVIN ESUGON Y AVILA BERSAMIN, J.
In line with current jurisprudence,[28] we increase the civil indemnity to P75,000.00, and the moral damages to P75,000.00.
	GR No. 185212 2012-02-15	PEOPLE v. MARITESS ALOLOD ABAD, J.
Consistent with recent jurisprudence the Court is awarding P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,[5] P25,000.00 as temperate damages,[6] another P75,000.00 as moral damages,[7] and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,[8] for a total of P205,000.00 in each case. But these amounts should only apply to Efren and not to the rest of the accused who withdrew their appeals.[9] Here, the RTC ordered Maritess, Edwin and Elmer to pay only P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case or a total of P100,000.00.
	GR No. 169084 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS BERSAMIN, J.
The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are also proper, but their corresponding amounts should be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[44] The actual damages of P15,000.00 and P8,000.00 granted to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano, respectively, were also warranted due to their being proven by receipts.[45] However, the Court has held that when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less than P25,000.00, as in the case of Sabino and Graciano, the award of temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount.[46] This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous and unfair that the heirs of the victim who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00 only would be put in a worse situation than others who might have presented no receipts at all but would be entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.[47] Hence, instead of only P15,000.00 and P8,000.00, the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages should be awarded each to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano.
	GR No. 179476 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. RUEL TUY BERSAMIN, J.
On the civil liability, we increase the civil indemnity and the moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and add exemplary damages of P30,000.00 in order to accord with current jurisprudence to the effect that damages in such amounts are granted whenever the accused is adjudged guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No. 7659 like murder.[8]
	GR No. 173822 2010-10-13	SALVADOR ATIZADO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Both petitioners were adjudged solidarily liable to pay damages to the surviving heirs of Llona. Their solidary civil liability arising from the commission of the crime stands,[36] despite the reduction of Monreal's penalty. But we must reform the awards of damages in order to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. The CA granted only P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as actual damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. We hold that the amounts for death indemnity and moral damages should each be raised to P75,000.00 to accord with prevailing case law;[37] and that exemplary damages of P30,000.00 due to the attendance of treachery should be further awarded,[38] to accord with the pronouncement in People v. Catubig,[39] to wit: The commission of an offense has two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which, is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.