This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2006-10-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We award the amount of P665,999.99 as indemnity for lost earnings of the victim. The prosecution was able to prove that Chito Arizala, at the time of his death, was 43 years old with a monthly income of P4,500.00.[45] The indemnity for the loss of the victim�s earning capacity[46] is computed as follows: Net earning capacity = Life expectancy[47] x (Gross annual income - living expenses[48]) Net earning capacity = 2/3 (80-43) x (P54,000 - P27,000) | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| A review of the evidence on record, nevertheless, would still warrant an affirmance of the trial court's judgment of conviction. The crime of robbery with homicide, penalized under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, requires proof that (a) the taking of personal property is done through violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) the commission of homicide (in its generic sense) occurs on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof.[12] There must be an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing but, once shown, it matters not whether both crimes be committed at the same time or one be prior or subsequent to the other.[13] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention that his identification was merely suggested by the police is without basis. Complainants positively identified appellant although they did not know his name when they reported the incident. In People v. Dinamling,[17] we held that witnesses need not know the names of the accused as long as they recognized their faces. What is important is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from their own personal knowledge. | |||||
|
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 | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the assailant should be given full faith and credit.[17] Moreover, the witnesses need not know the names of the accused as long as they recognize their faces. What is important is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from the witnesses' own personal knowledge.[18] | |||||