This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-05-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Net = Life expectancy x Gross Annual Income (GAI) - Living expenses Earning [2/3 (80-age at death)] (50% of GAI) Capacity The widow of the victim testified that prior to his death, her husband was earning P700.00 a week as a baker.[23] The victim therefore was earning an annual income of P33,600.00, counted at the rate of P700.00 a week for forty-eight (48) weeks.[24] As computed, the loss of earning capacity of the victim who died at the age of 24,[25] would be P626,640.00, thus: = 2/3 [(80-24)] x P33,600.00 - 50% | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Although, the court a quo awarded the heirs of the victim loss of earning capacity of the deceased, the amount of Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) should be reduced to Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos (P370,000.00). The father of the victim, Salcedo Aquino, testified that Elmer Aquino was a farmer who earned Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P14,000.00) per cropping but failed to adduce evidence to substantiate his claim.[39] Nevertheless, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides, "the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter x x x unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death." In the instant case, since there is no indication that the deceased had no earning capacity at the time of his death, we are inclined to give credit to Salcedo Aquino's testimony.[40] Salcedo Aquino, however, did not testify regarding the number of croppings the deceased victim had in a year. Nonetheless, the court a quo ruled that "[e]arning about Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) a year as a tiller is considered reasonable x x x." Adopting the lower court's assessment that the deceased earned about Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), we deduct therefrom his necessary and incidental expenses estimated at fifty per cent (50%), leaving a balance of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).[41] We then multiply his net annual income of P10,000.00 by his life expectancy[42] of 37 years to arrive at the amount of Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos (P370,000.00), which represents the loss of earning capacity of the deceased. | |||||
|
2001-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, a close perusal of the records confirms the correctness of the decision reached. For one, the argument that accused-appellant could not be at the locus criminis in the evening of 3 August 1994 as he was at home drinking with a friend is not persuasive. Alibi is a weak defense and is quite irreconcilable with the positive identification of the eyewitnesses to the crime.[12] For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that the accused was at a place far removed from the scene of the crime such that it was well-nigh impossible for him to have participated in the slaying.[13] In the case at bar, accused-appellant himself admitted that his house was barely a kilometer away from the locus criminis and the distance could be negotiated in a matter of minutes.[14] Verily, his defense that he was at home which was just one (1) kilometer away while Nestor and Danilo were being peppered with bullets, does not satisfactorily show that it was physically impossible for him to have participated in the shooting. | |||||