Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MARIO CONCEPCION Y NONADO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 175978 2009-02-12	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ALGARME Y BONDA BRION, J.
We have held in several cases [52] that where the evidence satisfactorily establishes that the appellant did kill and unlawfully take the personal property of the victim, but the original criminal design to commit robbery was not duly proven - the accused-appellant should be held liable for the separate crimes of homicide or murder (as the case may be) and theft, and not for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
	GR Nos. 140538-39 2004-06-14	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO B. ADOR PUNO, J.
The rules of evidence allow the courts to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.[51] It may be the basis of a conviction so long as the combination of all the circumstances proven produces a logical conclusion which suffices to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[52] All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the theory that all the accused are guilty of the offense charged, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are innocent and with every other possible, rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[53] The evidence must exclude each and every hypothesis which may be consistent with their innocence.[54] Also, it should be acted on and weighed with great caution.[55] Circumstantial evidence which has not been adequately established, much less corroborated, cannot by itself be the basis of conviction.[56]
	GR No. 146687 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
there is no modifying circumstance to aggravate or to mitigate criminal liability.[49] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused-appellant shall be entitled to a minimum term, to be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, Prision Mayor. Thus, accused-appellant shall be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum. Coming now to the matter of damages, we affirm the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[50] Such award requires no proof other than the death of the victim.[51] Likewise, the
	GR No. 135975 2002-08-14	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ABADIES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The lesser of these two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, pursuant to Article 63 (2) of the said Code. Following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court finds the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Cecilio Roldan proper without any need of proof other than the death of the victim.[31] Moral damages, pegged at P50,000.00 by controlling
	GR Nos. 144086-87 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. EDRALIN TABOGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The civil damages awarded by the trial court are in accordance with controlling statutory provisions and case law on the matter. Following prevailing jurisprudence and in line with controlling policy, the Court finds the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victims proper, without any need of proof other than the death of the victim.[53]
	GR Nos. 140557-58 2001-12-05	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Following prevailing jurisprudence[90] and in line with controlling policy, the Court finds the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victims proper without any need of proof[91] other than the death of the victim.[92] The award of moral damages by the trial court to the victims' heirs is likewise proper and is pegged at P50,000.00 by controlling case law[93] taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim's family[94] brought about by his death.[95]
	GR No. 142044 2001-11-23	PEOPLE v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS Y MABENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The amount of damages awarded by the trial court needs some modification. The civil indemnity, which the trial court termed compensation for loss of life of the victim, was correctly fixed at P50,000.00.[67] However, the amount of moral damages should be reduced from P500,000.00 to P50,000.00, as pegged by controlling case law,[68] taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim's family[69] brought about by his death.[70]
	GR No. 137457 2001-11-21	PEOPLE v. ROSAURO SIA Y DICHOSO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the civil indemnity award, this Court finds the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity proper, following prevailing jurisprudence,[48] and in line with controlling policy.[49] The award of civil indemnity may be granted without any need of proof other than the death of the victim.[50] Though not awarded by the trial court, the victim's heirs are likewise entitled to moral damages, pegged at P50,000.00 by controlling case law,[51] taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim's family[52] brought about by his death.[53]