Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SOTERO REYES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 140217 2003-02-21	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO PATOC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Anent the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the case at bar, the third paragraph of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294 (otherwise known as "An Act Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as Amended) provides that "if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance." It bears to note, however, that the crime in this case was committed on August 24, 1996, or before the effectivity of Republic Act 8294 on July 6, 1997. Hence, the trial court erred in appreciating the use of an unlicensed firearm in the case under review as a special aggravating circumstance. Since the above-mentioned provision of Republic Act 8294 is not beneficial to the accused-appellant because it unduly aggravates the crime, it will not be given retroactive application, lest it might acquire the character of an ex-post facto law. [37]
	GR Nos. 146235-36 2002-05-29	PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RAFAEL Y LEGASPI MENDOZA, J.
Third. The attacks on Gloria and Alejandra Rafael were clearly qualified by treachery inasmuch as they were made without warning and by armed men against defenseless women. The two conditions for treachery, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him,[33] have thus been met in this case. This qualifying circumstance of treachery absorbs the abuse of superior strength alleged in the informations so the latter need not be appreciated separately.[34] The crime committed as to Alejandra was clearly frustrated murder considering that the number and severity of her wounds would have caused her death had she not been rushed to the hospital and received timely medical attention.[35]
	GR No. 133964 2002-02-13	PEOPLE v. RAMIL PEÑA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As to the matter of damages, we hold that the trial court should have awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[20] The award of P26,000.00 as actual damages is upheld, being duly proven with receipts.[21]
	GR No. 131839 2002-01-30	PEOPLE v. ARANDE COLINA ADLAWAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As to accused-appellant's civil liability, we agree with the accused-appellant that the award of P18,850.00 as actual damages to the heirs of the deceased lacks basis. In lieu of actual damages, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P10,000.00. Temperate damages are awarded where pecuniary loss is proved but not the amount thereof.[20]
	GR Nos. 115236-37 2002-01-29	PEOPLE v. BRYAN FERDINAND DY Y LA MADRID YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Likewise, the award of P12,195.00 or the equivalent of US$450.00 as actual damages is deleted for lack of factual basis. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[46]
	GR No. 118073 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. RENATO ORPILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As to accused-appellant's civil liability, the award of P30,000.00 as moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[32] The award of P30,000.00 for medical and funeral expenses cannot, however, be allowed as the prosecution failed to present receipts therefor. Nevertheless, the heirs of the victim are entitled to P10,000.00 by way of temperate damages, since they were able to prove pecuniary loss, only that there was no competent proof as to the amount thereof.[33]