This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and even erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt. Some may escape or flee a circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members of the community.[16] (Citation omitted.) Moreover, our position on the effects of unexplained flight on the guilt or innocence of an accused remains unchanged. In People v. Camat,[17] we reiterated the jurisprudential doctrine that flight is indicative of guilt in this manner:Flight in criminal law is the evading of the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself in order to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. In one case, this Court had stated that it is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as a lion. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted.) From the foregoing, we have no other recourse but to sustain appellant's conviction for the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder. As correctly explained by the Court of Appeals, the single act of pitching or rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the gymnasium which resulted in the death of Ramie Balasa (Balasa) and injuries to other victims constituted a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which states that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. The penalty for the most serious crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to DEATH. Thus, applying Article 48, the death penalty should be imposed. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, the proper sentence therefore is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The awards of P75,000.00 civil indemnity and P75,000.00 moral damages to the respective heirs of SN1 Andal and SN1 Duclayna are also proper. These awards, civil indemnity and moral damages, are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder.[59] | |||||