This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-03-09 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the presence of four (4) gunshot wounds on Butad's body negates the claim that the killing was justified but instead indicates a determined effort to kill him. Even assuming that it was Butad who initiated the attack, the fact that petitioner was able to wrest the gun from him signifies that the aggression which Butad had started already ceased. Petitioner became the unlawful aggressor when he continued to shoot Butad even as he already lay defenseless on the ground.[30] | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Significantly, the appellants have not imputed any ill motive to Jessie for testifying against Cachola and Amay. Where there is no evidence to show a doubtful reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify against the accused or falsely implicate him in a crime, the said testimony is trustworthy and should be accorded full faith and credit.[23] | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Equally important is the fact that there was no showing of any improper motive on her part that would make her testify falsely against him. Hence, the logical conclusion is that no such motive exists, and that her testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[29] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Moreover, the defense has not shown any reason why Edgar, who corroborated Liza's testimony about the incident, would perjure himself to pin down Rufino. Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for the prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.[18] | |||||
|
2003-02-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant is thus liable for damages for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased Pio Gomez which shall be paid to his heirs. In fixing the indemnity, account is taken of the victim's actual income at the time of his death and his probable life expectancy[41] in accordance with the formula adopted by this Court, to wit: Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-age of the victim at the time of his death) x a reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received by the heirs for support[42] At the time of his death, Gomez was 48 years old.[43] Per the certification of employment and compensation[44] presented at the trial court, his average monthly gross income was P5,383.12 or an annual gross income of P64,597.44. In the absence of proof of his living expenses, his net income is deemed to be 50 percent of his gross income.[45] Using the above-stated formula, the indemnity for the loss of earning capacity of Gomez is P688,931.70, arrived at as follows: | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven. In the instant case, the victim's income at the time of his death was sufficiently proven not only by the testimony of the victim's wife, but by the duly authenticated Service Record,[39] of the victim. The formula[40] for computing the deceased's loss of earning capacity is as follows: Net = Life expectancy x Gross Annual Income (GAI) - Living expenses | |||||