This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As in the case of civil indemnity ex delicto, moral damages in murder cases require no further proof than death.[34] The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to his family.[35] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As regards the second issue, we agree with the courts' finding of treachery. We held that treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly or specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[15] In the case at bar, the victim was unarmed and unsuspecting when accused-appellant suddenly stabbed him. Treachery was clearly present in accused-appellant's method. | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As regards the damages awarded to the heirs of Aurea Broña in the amount of P50,000.00, the Court considers the same as representing civil indemnity. In murder cases, civil indemnity requires no further proof other than death.[43] | |||||
|
2004-03-09 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The right to counsel at all times is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. In People v. Dumalahay,[25] this Court held: The sworn confessions of the three accused show that they were properly apprised of their right to remain silent and right to counsel, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee. | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the accused person may, as a general rule, be taken as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt.[8] In the case at bar, not only did accused-appellant evade arrest when he went to Cebu under the pretext that he was going to work at Southern Island Hospital, but justice was further frustrated when he escaped from detention with the flimsy excuse that no one was guarding | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| receipts.[24] The award of moral damages, however, should be increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, pursuant to the Court's current policy.[25] In People v. Cabote,[26] we held that moral damages may be awarded in murder cases despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victims' heirs. A violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. With or without proof, this fact can never be denied; since it is undisputed, it must be considered proved. The Court further awards exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00, inasmuch as the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. In People v. Catubig,[27] we emphasized that insofar as the civil | |||||