Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO LADIT

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 146100 2002-11-13	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY LOTERONO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[28] People v. Tomas Coca, et al., G.R. No. 133739, 29 May 2002, citing People v. Clariño, 31 July 2002, citing People v. Hilot, 342 SCRA 128 [2000] .
	GR No. 133886 2001-09-05	PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We agree with the Solicitor General that the attendance of evident premeditation in the killing was not established because there was no proof or showing of: 1.] the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; 2.] an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and 3.] a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect on the consequences of his act.[40] As in treachery, none of these elements of evident premeditation can be fairly inferred from the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case.
	GR No. 126168 2001-03-07	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO Y LORESTO DE LEON, JR., J.
Similarly, the prosecution failed to establish the attendance of evident premeditation. There was no proof or showing of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit and the execution thereof, to allow the offender to reflect on the consequence of his act.[35] None of these elements of evident premeditation can be fairly inferred from the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case at bar.
	GR Nos. 128088 & 146639 2001-01-31	PEOPLE v. WILSON RONAS MENDOZA, J.
The award of damages should be modified. For the death of the victim Mariano Buenaventura, the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as indemnity and P100,000.00 as actual damages to the heirs of the victim. The award of P50,000.00 as indemnity is correct. But the award of P100,000.00 as actual damages must be deleted as there is no competent proof to support it, no receipts showing the expenses incurred during the wake and burial of the victim having been presented as required by Art. 2199 of the Civil Code.[27] Jose Buenaventura claimed that he lost the receipts for expenses in connection with Mariano's burial. Under Art. 2224, temperate damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs suffered some pecuniary loss although the exact amount cannot be proved with certainty.[28] Hence, an award of P25,000.00 by way of temperate damages would be appropriate. In addition, the heirs of the victim are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.[29] The purpose of making such award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[30] For the injuries sustained by Santiago Buenaventura, the trial court gave an award of P25,000.00 for actual damages. This should be deleted for lack of evidence to support it. However, the amount of P3,500.00 as temperate damages may be made in its place.
	GR No. 128362 2001-01-16	PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR DE LA CRUZ MENDOZA, J.
On the other hand, in line with our rulings in several cases,[22] the heirs of the victim should be paid the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Unlike the award of actual damages, the award of civil indemnity need no proof other than the death of the victim. In addition, while the heirs of the victim are entitled to moral damages, the award must not exceed P50,000.00 as fixed by our recent rulings.[23] The purpose of making such award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[24]
	GR No. 132025 2001-01-16	PEOPLE v. MARGARITO GALO MENDOZA, J.
Third. Considering the manner in which Argeo Cuizona was attacked, we find that his killing was committed with abuse of superior strength. Accused-appellants made use of their superiority not only in number but also in arms. By simultaneously beating the victim with their various weapons, accused-appellants clearly took advantage of their superiority in number and arms.[49]
	GR Nos. 136251 2001-01-16	PEOPLE v. JERITO AMAZAN MENDOZA, J.
In all three cases, the lower court correctly ruled that there was no aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. Indeed, there is no evidence showing (a) the time when accused-appellants determined to commit the crime; (b) acts manifestly indicating that they had clung to their determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow them opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of their acts and to allow their conscience to overcome the resolution of their will.[55]