Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROSALITO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 154348-50 2004-06-08	PEOPLE v. PABLO DELA CRUZ YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
We now turn to the issue of damages. In the case involving Victoriano Francisco, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto in favor of Victoriano's heirs, which award is mandatory and requires no proof other than the victim's death.[34] While no actual damages may be awarded because no competent evidence in the form of receipts was presented, temperate damages may be recovered under Article 2224 of the Civil Code as the Court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Consistent with current jurisprudence, the amount of P25,000.00 is also awarded to Victoriano's heirs considering that it is not disputed that the family incurred expenses for the wake and burial of the victim.[35]
	GR No. 136845 2003-10-08	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO FLORENDO BELLOSILLO, J.
As the trial court failed to award indemnity in favor of the heirs of the victim, the amount of P50,000.00 should be adjudged as civil indemnity ex delicto, which award is mandatory and requires no proof other than the victim's death.[26]
	GR No. 139970 2002-06-06	PEOPLE v. JIMMY DELA CRUZ Y QUIMPO QUISUMBING, J.
Based on the established facts, the Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of Arnulfo Inocencio was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when one employs means, methods or forms in the execution of a crime without risk to oneself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[26] The victim was then unarmed and oblivious to the possibility of a deadly attack as he was even having fun with his friends and appellant. There was no altercation or confrontation that preceded the attack. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack even failed to forewarn or arouse any alarm from the victim's drinking companions. They did not suspect that anything untoward would happen. Indeed, the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim.[27] Moreover, although the victim and his assailant were face to face at the time the stabbing was made, where it appears that the attack was not preceded by a dispute and the offended party was unable to prepare for his defense, treachery should be taken into account.[28]
	GR No. 134572 2002-04-18	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO UMAYAM Y CASTRO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The award of civil damages by the trial court needs modification. Accused-appellant must pay the heirs of the deceased, Emma Mendoza, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, in addition to the civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court in line with the policy of the Court to award moral damages in case of violent death without need of proof.[35]