Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SAMSON ESCLETO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 212151 2015-02-18	PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES v. JAY HINLO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Anent the award of damages, the Court deems it proper to modify the amount given in order to conform with existing rules and recent jurisprudence. When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: (a) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (b) actual or compensatory damages; (c) moral damages; (d) exemplary damages; and (e) temperate damages.[30] Thus, with respect to the crime for which herein accused-appellants are convicted, civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is granted without need of evidence other than the commission of the crime,[31] moral damages in the sum of P75,000.00 is granted automatically in the absence of any qualifying aggravating circumstance,[32] exemplary damages in the sum of P30,000.00 is granted where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible conduct of the offenders, and where the amount of actual damages for funeral expenses cannot be ascertained due to the absence of receipts to prove them, temperate damages in the sum of P25,000.00 may be granted in lieu thereof. In addition, the Court also imposes on all the monetary awards for damages interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
	GR No. 191722 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. GERRY SABANGAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages.[54] Jurisprudence has decreed that the award of civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime, while moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. Exemplary or corrective damages, in turn, are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages as provided by Article 2229 of the Civil Code.
	GR No. 190340 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.[34] "There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the RTC, as affirmed by the [CA] properly imposed [upon appellants] the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2[35] of the [RPC]."[36]
	GR No. 177763 2013-07-03	PEOPLE v. GARY VERGARA Y ORIEL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The rationale for these guidelines is that, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under grueling examination, the trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility.[27] On the other hand, this Court is far detached from the details and drama during trial and relies only on the records of the case in its review. On the matter of credence and credibility of witnesses, therefore, this Court admits to its limitations and acknowledges the advantage of the trial court whose findings we give due deference.
	GR No. 188603 2013-01-16	PEOPLE v. RAMIL RARUGAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The rationale for these guidelines is that the trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under grueling examination.[21]
	GR No. 184601 2012-11-12	PEOPLE v. MARCIAL MALICDEM Y MOLINA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Time and again, this Court has stated that, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which would alter a conviction, it generally defers to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses especially if such findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[20] This must be so since the trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under grueling examination.[21]
	GR No. 184601 2012-11-12	PEOPLE v. MARCIAL MALICDEM Y MOLINA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.[28]
	GR No. 182523 2012-09-15	PEOPLE v. EFREN LAURIO Y ROSALES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.[30]