Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROÑO SEGURITAN Y JARA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 198389 2013-12-11	VIVENCIO ROALLOS Y TRILLANES v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
That Roallos did in fact commit lascivious conduct towards AAA is a finding of fact by the lower courts, which this Court cannot simply disregard. In a criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below.[18] The Court finds no reason to overturn the factual findings as the lower courts in this case.
	GR No. 198904 2013-12-11	DELIA INES RINGOR v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
In sum, the Court yields to the factual findings of the RTC which were affirmed by the CA, there being no compelling reason to disregard the same. In a criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below.[16]
	GR No. 151258 2012-02-01	ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The heirs of the victim are entitled to actual or compensatory damages, including expenses incurred in connection with the death of the victim, so long as the claim is supported by tangible documents.[276] Though we are prepared to award actual damages, the Court is prevented from granting them, since the records are bereft of any evidence to show that actual expenses were incurred or proven during trial. Furthermore, in the appeal, the Solicitor General does not interpose any claim for actual damages.[277]
	GR No. 188072 2011-10-19	EMERITA M. DE GUZMAN v. ANTONIO M. TUMOLVA MENDOZA, J.
Nevertheless, De Guzman is indeed entitled to temperate damages as provided under Article 2224 of the Civil Code for the loss she suffered. When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[15] Undoubtedly, De Guzman suffered pecuniary loss brought about by the collapse of the perimeter fence by reason of the Contractor's negligence and failure to comply with the specifications. As she failed to prove the exact amount of damage with certainty as required by law, the CA was correct in awarding temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages. However, after weighing carefully the attendant circumstances and taking into account the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions of the perimeter fence, the amount of ?100,000.00 awarded to De Guzman should be increased. This Court, in recognition of the pecuniary loss suffered, finds the award of ?150,000.00 by way of temperate damages as reasonable and just under the premises.