Lawyerly

GR No. 198022

2014-04-07

PERALTA, J.

Finally, the award of damages. In murder, the grant of civil indemnity which has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00 requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility therefor. Moral damages, on the other hand, which in this case is also P50,000.00 are awarded in view of the violent death of the victim.[46] Moreover, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 should likewise be given, considering that the offense was attended by an aggravating circumstance whether ordinary, or qualifying as in this case. As duly proven by Maria Castillo, actual damages representing the hospital and funeral expenses, as evidenced by receipts in the amount of P35,300.00, be awarded. Finally, in addition and in conformity with current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for damages an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) from date of finality of this decision until full payment.[47]

GR No. 196960

2014-03-12

PEOPLE v. ERWIN TAMAYO Y BAUTISTA

ABAD, J.

In disposing the civil aspect of the case, the RTC correctly awarded to Joey's heirs the amount of P36,981.85 as actual damages representing medical and funeral expenses[23] as this amount was adequately supported by the receipts.[24] In addition, this Court sustains the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages given to Joey's heirs for being in accord with established jurisprudence.[25]

GR No. 191722

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. GERRY SABANGAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[43] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.[44]

GR No. 201445

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. HERMENIGILDO MAGLENTE Y MEDINA

REYES, J.

"The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims."[34] Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.[35]

GR No. 199892

2012-12-10

PEOPLE v. ARTURO PUNZALAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.[49] The six navy personnel were walking by the roadside, on their way back to their camp. They felt secure as they have just passed a sentry and were nearing their barracks. They were totally unaware of the threat to their life as their backs were turned against the direction where appellant's speeding van came. They were therefore defenseless and posed no threat to appellant when appellant mowed them down with his van, killing two of them, injuring three others and one narrowly escaping injury or death. Beyond reasonable doubt, there was treachery in appellant's act. This was sufficiently alleged in the Information which not only expressly mentioned treachery as one of the circumstances attending the crime but also described it in understandable language: [T]he said accused, with intent to kill, while driving and in control of a Nissan Van with plate no. DRW 706, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, bump, overrun, smash and hit from behind with the use of said van, the following persons: Antonio Duclayna, Arnulfo Andal, Evelio Bacosa, Danilo Cuya, Erlinger Bundang and Cesar Domingo, x x x.[50] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 184500

2012-09-11

PEOPLE OF PIIILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO NELMIDA

PEREZ, J.

Article 2230 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In this case, treachery may no longer be considered as an aggravating circumstance since it was already taken as a qualifying circumstance in the murder, and abuse of superior strength which would otherwise warrant the award of exemplary damages was already absorbed in the treachery.[112] However, in People v. Combate,[113] this Court still awards exemplary damages despite the lack of any aggravating circumstance to deter similar conduct and to serve as an example for public good. Thus, to deter future similar transgressions, the Court finds that an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in favor of the heirs of each deceased victims is proper.[114] The said amount is in conformity with this Court's ruling in People v. Gutierrez.[115]

GR No. 188612

2012-07-30

PEOPLE v. DIOSDADO CAMAT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is well-settled that where the wounds inflicted on the victim are not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only Attempted Murder, as the accused had not performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the victim's death.[49]

GR No. 190317

2011-08-22

PEOPLE v. LARRY TORRES

VELASCO JR., J.

When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[20]

GR No. 158362

2011-04-04

PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO

BERSAMIN, J.

However, the CA did not explain why it did not review and revise the grant by the RTC of civil liability in the amount of only P50,000.00. Thereby, the CA committed a plainly reversible error for ignoring existing laws, like Article 2206 of the Civil Code,[53] which prescribes a death indemnity separately from moral damages, and Article 2230 of the Civil Code,[54] which requires exemplary damages in case of death due to crime when there is at least one aggravating circumstance; and applicable jurisprudence, specifically, People v. Gutierrez,[55] where we held that moral damages should be awarded to the heirs without need of proof or pleading in view of the violent death of the victim, and People v.Catubig,[56] where we ruled that exemplary damages were warranted whenever the crime was attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary. Here, the aggravating circumstance of treachery, albeit attendant or qualifying in its effect, justified the grant of exemplary damages.

GR No. 175330

2011-01-12

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO CAPITLE

CARPIO, J.

Since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proved in this case, the award of exemplary damages is proper. However, we reduce the amount of exemplary damages from P50,000 to P30,000 consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[26]

GR No. 191194

2010-10-22

PEOPLE v. ASTRO ASTROLABIO ASIS

MENDOZA, J.

One who admits killing or fatally injuring another in the name of self-defense bears the burden of proving: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. By invoking self-defense, the burden is placed on the accused to prove its elements clearly and convincingly. While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded.[13]

GR No. 191254

2010-10-13

PEOPLE v. ROEL 'RUEL' SALLY

VELASCO JR., J.

Whether or not an iron pipe was used to kill Jose Bersero and Edwin Lucas is irrelevant. It was the testimony of Roger Lara that accused-appellant killed Jose Bersero and Edwin Lucas by hitting them with an iron pipe while they were sleeping. It is beyond argument that the unconscious victims would have been unable to defend themselves from the attack of the accused, regardless of the weapon used. Article 14, paragraph 16(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides, "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." This precisely covers the situation that accused-appellant took advantage of, when he attacked the victims while they were sleeping. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.[25]

GR No. 176354

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We also sustain the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of the victim in view of the latter's violent death. These do not require allegation and proof of the emotional sufferings of the heirs.[30] Finally, the award in the amount of P25,000.00, as temperate damages and the amount of exemplary damages are also in order considering that the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[31] The amount of exemplary damages, however, must be increased to P30,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[32]

GR No. 188975

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. ALBERT TEÑOSO Y LOPEZ

MENDOZA, J.

The award of civil indemnity is proper. It requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility therefor. Although jurisprudence fixed the civil indemnity at P50,000.00 only,[36] the Court upholds the award of P300,000.00 civil indemnity since the parties had stipulated such amount in the event of a judgment of conviction.[37]

	GR No. 198022 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. SONNY GATARIN Y CABALLERO PERALTA, J.
Finally, the award of damages. In murder, the grant of civil indemnity which has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00 requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility therefor. Moral damages, on the other hand, which in this case is also P50,000.00 are awarded in view of the violent death of the victim.[46] Moreover, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 should likewise be given, considering that the offense was attended by an aggravating circumstance whether ordinary, or qualifying as in this case. As duly proven by Maria Castillo, actual damages representing the hospital and funeral expenses, as evidenced by receipts in the amount of P35,300.00, be awarded. Finally, in addition and in conformity with current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for damages an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) from date of finality of this decision until full payment.[47]
	GR No. 196960 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. ERWIN TAMAYO Y BAUTISTA ABAD, J.
In disposing the civil aspect of the case, the RTC correctly awarded to Joey's heirs the amount of P36,981.85 as actual damages representing medical and funeral expenses[23] as this amount was adequately supported by the receipts.[24] In addition, this Court sustains the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages given to Joey's heirs for being in accord with established jurisprudence.[25]
	GR No. 191722 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. GERRY SABANGAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[43] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.[44]
	GR No. 201445 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. HERMENIGILDO MAGLENTE Y MEDINA REYES, J.
"The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims."[34] Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.[35]
	GR No. 199892 2012-12-10	PEOPLE v. ARTURO PUNZALAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.[49] The six navy personnel were walking by the roadside, on their way back to their camp. They felt secure as they have just passed a sentry and were nearing their barracks. They were totally unaware of the threat to their life as their backs were turned against the direction where appellant's speeding van came. They were therefore defenseless and posed no threat to appellant when appellant mowed them down with his van, killing two of them, injuring three others and one narrowly escaping injury or death. Beyond reasonable doubt, there was treachery in appellant's act. This was sufficiently alleged in the Information which not only expressly mentioned treachery as one of the circumstances attending the crime but also described it in understandable language: [T]he said accused, with intent to kill, while driving and in control of a Nissan Van with plate no. DRW 706, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, bump, overrun, smash and hit from behind with the use of said van, the following persons: Antonio Duclayna, Arnulfo Andal, Evelio Bacosa, Danilo Cuya, Erlinger Bundang and Cesar Domingo, x x x.[50] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 184500 2012-09-11	PEOPLE OF PIIILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO NELMIDA PEREZ, J.
Article 2230 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In this case, treachery may no longer be considered as an aggravating circumstance since it was already taken as a qualifying circumstance in the murder, and abuse of superior strength which would otherwise warrant the award of exemplary damages was already absorbed in the treachery.[112] However, in People v. Combate,[113] this Court still awards exemplary damages despite the lack of any aggravating circumstance to deter similar conduct and to serve as an example for public good. Thus, to deter future similar transgressions, the Court finds that an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in favor of the heirs of each deceased victims is proper.[114] The said amount is in conformity with this Court's ruling in People v. Gutierrez.[115]
	GR No. 188612 2012-07-30	PEOPLE v. DIOSDADO CAMAT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is well-settled that where the wounds inflicted on the victim are not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only Attempted Murder, as the accused had not performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the victim's death.[49]
	GR No. 190317 2011-08-22	PEOPLE v. LARRY TORRES VELASCO JR., J.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[20]
	GR No. 158362 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO BERSAMIN, J.
However, the CA did not explain why it did not review and revise the grant by the RTC of civil liability in the amount of only P50,000.00. Thereby, the CA committed a plainly reversible error for ignoring existing laws, like Article 2206 of the Civil Code,[53] which prescribes a death indemnity separately from moral damages, and Article 2230 of the Civil Code,[54] which requires exemplary damages in case of death due to crime when there is at least one aggravating circumstance; and applicable jurisprudence, specifically, People v. Gutierrez,[55] where we held that moral damages should be awarded to the heirs without need of proof or pleading in view of the violent death of the victim, and People v.Catubig,[56] where we ruled that exemplary damages were warranted whenever the crime was attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary. Here, the aggravating circumstance of treachery, albeit attendant or qualifying in its effect, justified the grant of exemplary damages.
	GR No. 175330 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO CAPITLE CARPIO, J.
Since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proved in this case, the award of exemplary damages is proper. However, we reduce the amount of exemplary damages from P50,000 to P30,000 consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[26]
	GR No. 191194 2010-10-22	PEOPLE v. ASTRO ASTROLABIO ASIS MENDOZA, J.
One who admits killing or fatally injuring another in the name of self-defense bears the burden of proving: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. By invoking self-defense, the burden is placed on the accused to prove its elements clearly and convincingly. While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded.[13]
	GR No. 191254 2010-10-13	PEOPLE v. ROEL 'RUEL' SALLY VELASCO JR., J.
Whether or not an iron pipe was used to kill Jose Bersero and Edwin Lucas is irrelevant. It was the testimony of Roger Lara that accused-appellant killed Jose Bersero and Edwin Lucas by hitting them with an iron pipe while they were sleeping. It is beyond argument that the unconscious victims would have been unable to defend themselves from the attack of the accused, regardless of the weapon used. Article 14, paragraph 16(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides, "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." This precisely covers the situation that accused-appellant took advantage of, when he attacked the victims while they were sleeping. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.[25]
	GR No. 176354 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We also sustain the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of the victim in view of the latter's violent death. These do not require allegation and proof of the emotional sufferings of the heirs.[30] Finally, the award in the amount of P25,000.00, as temperate damages and the amount of exemplary damages are also in order considering that the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[31] The amount of exemplary damages, however, must be increased to P30,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[32]
	GR No. 188975 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ALBERT TEÑOSO Y LOPEZ MENDOZA, J.
The award of civil indemnity is proper. It requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility therefor. Although jurisprudence fixed the civil indemnity at P50,000.00 only,[36] the Court upholds the award of P300,000.00 civil indemnity since the parties had stipulated such amount in the event of a judgment of conviction.[37]

PEOPLE v. FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO