This case has been cited 11 times or more.
|
2010-02-04 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We also affirm the CA ruling that appellant is guilty of attempted murder, not of frustrated murder, in Criminal Case No. 03-3640 for the injury sustained by Dalit. No convincing proof was offered to show that the wound inflicted on Dalit was fatal and would have caused his death had medical help not been provided. It is well settled that where the wounds inflicted on the victim are not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, as the accused had not performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the victim's death.[24] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| This brings us to appellant's civil liability about which the trial court completely ignored. In addition to the CA's award of moral and exemplary damages and civil indemnity, we find it proper that temperate damages must also be awarded to the heirs of Allan. The victim's mother testified that the family incurred P69,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses, but she was not able to present receipts. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered some pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved with certainty.[14] In People v. Abrazaldo,[15] we held that where, as in this case, the amount of actual damages cannot be determined because no receipts were presented to prove the same but it is shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages may be awarded, fixed at P25,000.00. Considering that funeral expenses were obviously incurred by the victim's heirs, an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is proper. | |||||
|
2002-05-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In addition, the heirs are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in accordance with Art. 2219 of the Civil Code for the physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock caused by the manner by which Arlene was raped and killed.[41] | |||||
|
2002-01-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A: Only the light from the perok-perok inside the hut and the flashlight. Q: And that light of perok-perok cannot even shed light outside the hut? A: No, sir. Q: That overall vicinity was very dark, you will admit that? A: Yes, sir, the surroundings are dark. Q. As a matter of fact, you can hardly identify persons at the distance of 150 meters away because of the dark? A. It is really very difficult to recognize person from that distance. Q. At the distance of 70 meters, because of darkness, in an open field, you have likewise difficulties to recognize a person? A. It is really very difficult to recognize."[25] (Emphasis supplied). Clearly, there was no other source of light outside of the shanty except for the one coming from the flashlight. Except for this light, Mendoza admitted that the surroundings of the shanty were "dark". Although it has been held in a line of cases that illumination produced by a flashlight is sufficient to permit identification of a person,[26] the flashlight in such cases is held by the witness and not by the accused.[27] This difference is significant because in the cases where it is the witness carrying the flashlight, he is able to point the light at the assailants and focus the light on their faces, thus identifying them. In the present case, where the flashlight was held by a companion of the assailants, the stream of light from the flashlight was most probably focused not on the faces of the assailants but either on the ground to light the way of the assailants, or on the shanty, or alternately on both. | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the items of damages awarded by the trial court, we find the award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victim to be in accord with recent rulings of this Court.[34] However, we find the amount of P30,000.00 awarded as nominal damages to be excessive and should therefore be reduced. The amount of P15,000.00 would be appropriate considering that the heirs of the victim actually incurred hospital and funeral expenses as a result of the victim's death, although the exact amount thereof has not been adequately shown.[35] The amount of moral damages awarded should likewise be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with the current case law.[36] | |||||
|
2001-08-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants' defense is alibi. The rule is that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[25] In addition, accused-appellants were within a few meters from where the victim was assaulted, thus negating the requirement that for alibi to be successfully invoked, it must be impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[26] | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We affirm the trial court's award of civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as death indemnity.[49] | |||||
|
2001-07-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As regards the question of damages, however, we find the trial court's award of P400,000.00 as indemnity, in accordance with our rulings[50] on this question, to be excessive. Accused-appellant should only be made to pay the amount of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P50,000.00 for moral damages. | |||||