This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2004-06-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled in jurisprudence that the factors that should be taken into account in determining the compensable amount of lost earnings are: (1) the number of years for which the victim would otherwise have lived; and (2) the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased. Jurisprudence provides that the first factor, i.e., life expectancy, is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 - age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial Combined Experience Table of Mortality. As to the second factor, it is computed by multiplying the life expectancy by the net earnings of the deceased, i.e., the total earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental expenses. The net earning is ordinarily computed at fifty percent (50%) of the gross earnings.[24] Thus, the formula used by this Court in computing loss of earning capacity is: Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 age at time of death) x (gross annual income reasonable and necessary living expenses)].[25] | |||||
|
2004-06-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the rights of a person under custodial investigation, including the right to counsel, have already attached to the Adors, and pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 12(1) and (3), 1987 Constitution, any waiver of these rights should be in writing and undertaken with the assistance of counsel. Admissions under custodial investigation made without the assistance of counsel are barred as evidence.[78] The records are bare of any indication that the accused have waived their right to counsel, hence, any of their admissions are inadmissible in evidence against them. As we have held, a suspect's confession, whether verbal or non-verbal, when taken without the assistance of counsel without a valid waiver of such assistance regardless of the absence of such coercion, or the fact that it had been voluntarily given, is inadmissible in evidence, even if such confession were gospel truth.[79] Thus, in Aballe v. People,[80] the death weapon, a four-inch kitchen knife, which was found after the accused brought the police to his house and pointed to them the pot where he had concealed it, was barred from admission as it was discovered as a consequence of an uncounseled extrajudicial confession. | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Evident premeditation, although alleged in the information, was not adequately proven. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[86] The elements of evident premeditation are: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his resolve; and (3) a sufficient interval of time between the determination or conception and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will if he desired to hearken to its warning.[87] Where, as in this case, there is no evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was decided and what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance.[88] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For circumstantial evidence to be a sufficient basis for a conviction, the following requisites must be satisfied: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[69] | |||||
|
2003-02-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we may well emphasize that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.[11] Certainly, rules on evidence and principles in jurisprudence sustain the conviction of the accused through circumstantial evidence.[12] | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| succumbed to death on the second floor of the ancestral house. Venus witnessed only a portion of the assault, so that she would be unable to paint an accurate picture of the killing. We have consistently ruled that absent any particulars as to the manner with which the aggression was commenced, or how the act that resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated.[5] Thus, no matter how truthful the suppositions offered by Venus appear, they do not, as they cannot produce the effect of aggravating the liability of the accused. Treachery likewise was not attendant in the killing of Rializa. The attendant circumstances indicate that the attack on Rializa was the result of a rash and impetuous impulse rather than of a deliberate, conscious and willful act. We have ruled in a catena of cases that where | |||||
|
2002-09-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| of current jurisprudence on the matter.[40] The award of exemplary damages on the basis of the fact that one aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, is affirmed.[41] No actual damages can be awarded inasmuch as no receipts were presented by the victim's family regarding funeral expenses or by the owner of the carnapped tricycle regarding repair expenses. We have time and again ruled that only substantiated and proven expenses will be recognized to justify an award for actual damages.[42] Three members of the Court maintain their position that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the Court, by majority vote, that the law is constitutional and the death penalty should | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 - age at time of death) x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses)][44] | |||||