This case has been cited 19 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, the award of P80,000.00 by the RTC as actual damages is deleted for lack of competent evidence to support it. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized by the court.[46] In lieu thereof, appellant should pay temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, said amount being awarded in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial court,[47] and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[48] Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages "may be awarded when the Court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty." | |||||
|
2004-03-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| damages does not appear wholly supported by the evidence on record. Evangeline dela Peña, the widow of the victim, presented receipts and testified that she spent P1,449.55 for hospital bills, P50,000 for funeral services including the cost for the casket, and P34,500 for the burial lot and tombstone.[40] She did not present receipts for the P30,000 she claimed as funeral expenses but only a statement of expenses[41] she had prepared herself. A party seeking the award of actual damages must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.[42] The award of actual damages must therefore be reduced to P85,949.55. But it being undeniable that expenses for the funeral of the victim was incurred, the sum of P10,000 may be awarded to his widow as temperate damages. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 6, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to damages. Appellant HARRY SOLIDUM alias ARIEL SOLIDUM alias REY TIMBAL is declared GUILTY beyond reasonable | |||||
|
2003-09-03 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As to actual damages, while Melchor Rogero testified that they incurred burial and other expenses resulting from the death of Alejandro, no competent evidence was presented to prove his claim. Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, a party is entitled to compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.[42] However, under Article 2224 of the same Code, temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. In the present case, the heirs of Alejandro clearly incurred funeral and burial expenses. Hence, we find that the amount of P7,500[43] by way of temperate damages is justified. | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Not only were witnesses' testimonies convincing and unequivocal, the same were also backed up by the physical evidence, which is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth.[17] It is well-settled rule that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the assailant are considered important indicators which belie a plea of self-defense.[18] | |||||
|
2003-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A In my opinion, there were more than one assailants (sic) here because of the presence of different types of stab wounds and lacerated wounds. This lacerated wound could not have been inflicted by the one holding the one which inflicted the instrument . . (discontinued) which inflicted the stab wounds. Q So there could have been two or three assailants? A More than one.[15] The physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of the veracity of Elisa's testimony.[16] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| To prove self-defense, appellant must show with clear and convincing evidence that: (1) he was not the unlawful aggressor; (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and (3) he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. Self-defense, like alibi, is a defense easy to concoct. Once appellant admitted that he inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased, it is incumbent upon him, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.[12] | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, even if it was true that the initial act of aggression came from the deceased, still the appellants' plea of self-defense will not prosper. As stated above, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that appellants Crisanto and Hilario were able to restrain the victim by the wrists. At that point, any unlawful aggression or danger on the lives of the appellants ceased, hence, it was no longer necessary for appellant Clarence to repeatedly stab the victim. Verily, their act could no longer be interpreted as an act of self-preservation but a perverse desire to kill.[21] Furthermore, the number of wounds sustained by the victim negates self-defense. It certainly defies reason why the victim sustained a total of 15 wounds on the different parts of his body if appellants were only defending themselves. Parenthetically, the number of wounds was eloquently established by the physical evidence, which is a mute manifestation of truth and ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.[22] | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for the award of the amount of P127,500.00 as actual damages, the same appears to have been based on the claim of the victim's sister Lilia Santilloza that the heirs incurred funeral, burial and miscellaneous expenses. She, however, merely presented two sheets of yellow pad containing a list[43] of the expenses allegedly incurred which cannot be considered as competent proof and cannot replace the probative value of official receipts to justify the award of actual damages. Article 2199 of the Civil Code explicitly requires that, except as provided by law or stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.[44] The award of actual damages is thus deleted for lack of factual and legal basis. Nonetheless, accused-appellant should pay the heirs of the victim temperate damages under Article 2224 of the Civil Code in the amount of P10,000.00. | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Besides, a list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions.[45] Neither can the mere testimonies of the victims' widows Ruth Agustin, Rhodora Raagas, and Merle Castro in the consolidated cases against Caraig justify the awards for funeral or burial expenses. It is necessary for a party seeking the award of actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim will be recognized in court. [46] Nonetheless, in line with People v. Carillo,[47] reiterated in People v. Bonifacio,[48] we shall award nominal damages in the amount of P10,000 for each group of heirs of the victims, since they clearly incurred funeral expenses. | |||||
|
2003-03-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must prove the existence of the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the person being attacked to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[6] Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. It contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.[7] Of all the elements, unlawful aggression, i.e., the sudden unprovoked attack on the person defending himself, is indispensable.[8] | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P10,000.00 nominal damages awarded by the trial court are hereby sustained being in accord with current jurisprudence.[34] | |||||
|
2002-12-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| alibi, is a defense easy to concoct. It is axiomatic that once an accused had admitted that he inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased, it is incumbent upon him, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.[9] The question whether accused-appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact. In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element.[10] | |||||
|
2002-11-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| have a penchant for remembering the faces and features of their attackers. The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[7] Moreover, where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses did not appear to be biased against the accused, their assertions as to the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted.[8] In the case at bar, accused-appellants failed to show that the prosecution witnesses were prompted by any ill motive to falsely testify or wrongfully accuse them of so grave a crime of robbery with homicide. The Court adheres to the established rule that in the absence of any | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| contained in a certification by Joemari's wife, Vienna Rose Bedua. This list of expenses cannot be considered as competent proof and cannot replace the probative value of official receipts to justify the award of actual damages. The certification may even be considered as self-serving, and does not meet the requirement that a party seeking the award of actual damages must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.[17] On the other hand, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, we affirm the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity[18] for the death of Joemari and P50,000.00 as moral damages.[19] Also, as held in People v. Samson | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transaction. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.[24] Thus, the award of actual damages must be deleted for lack of competent proof.[25] However, as the heirs of the victim incurred medical and funeral expenses, we deem it proper to award P10,000.00 by way of nominal damages so that a right which has been violated may be recognized or vindicated.[26] In People v. Ciron,[27] the Court held that the unlawful killing of a person, which may either be murder or homicide, entitles the heirs of the deceased to moral damages without need of independent proof other than the fact of death of the | |||||
|
2002-08-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| elements: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it; and (3) the person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.[13] Moreover, he cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself admitted the killing.[14] Hence, while it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits committing the crime but only in his or another's defense.[15] Ei incumbit | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| receipts when they should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions. It is necessary for a party seeking the award of actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized by the Court. It will not rely merely on suppositions and conjectures.[23] Thus, the amount of actual damages is reduced to P13,250.00. The trial court also awarded indemnity amounting to P100,000.00 and denominated it as compensatory and moral damages. This award should be reduced to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[24] This is different and apart from moral damages and | |||||
|
2002-08-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| witness on the stand. Unless there are substantial matters that might have been overlooked or discarded, the findings of credibility by the trial court will not generally be disturbed on appeal.[11] In the case at bar, a careful and thorough review of the records reveals that the trial court was correct in convicting accused-appellant on the basis of the testimony of Franco Cuyos, who was not shown to have been impelled by ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant.[12] Not only was his testimony convincing and unequivocal, the same was also backed up by physical evidence, a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth[13] that the victim was indeed shot on the chest and at close range. Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi were correctly disregarded by the trial court. Time and again, we have said that denial and alibi are the weakest defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification.[14] For alibi to prosper as a | |||||
|
2002-07-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| 9:30 in the morning. Where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased against the accused, their assertions as to the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the accused as the assailant should be given full faith and credit.[4] Accused-appellant cannot give any reason why Arturo would testify falsely against him. It would be against the natural order of events and of human nature, and against the presumption of good faith, that a prosecution witness would falsely testify against accused-appellant.[5] When there is no evidence to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved by an improper motive, the presumption is that such motive was absent, and that the witness' testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Between appellant's denial and the | |||||