Lawyerly

GR No. 213383

2015-06-22

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In order for self-defense to be appreciated, accused-appellant must be able to prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[21] An accused who invokes self-defense has the burden to prove all the aforesaid elements, the most important of which is unlawful aggression. Being the basic requirement in a plea of self-defense,[22] unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[23] No self-defense can exist without unlawful aggression since there is no attack that the accused will have to prevent or repel.[24]

GR No. 161308

2014-01-15

RICARDO MEDINA v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation.[12] This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[13] But here Ricardo has not projected any strong and compelling reasons to sway the Court into rejecting or revising such factual findings and evaluation in his favor.

GR No. 191722

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. GERRY SABANGAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The grant of actual damages in the total amount of P106,354.00, representing funeral and burial expenses, is proper being duly supported by receipts. The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is also correct pursuant to recent rulings of the Court.[55] However, the Court increases the awards of civil indemnity and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively, in accordance with the latest jurisprudence.[56]

GR No. 201445

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. HERMENIGILDO MAGLENTE Y MEDINA

REYES, J.

Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00[42] was also correctly awarded by the CA. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[43] Meanwhile, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 was also properly awarded.[44]

GR No. 190862

2013-10-09

PEOPLE v. RICARDO DEARO

SERENO, C.J.

As to the award of damages to the heirs of each victim, we find that the awards of civil indemnity and temperate damages made by the CA in the amounts of P75,000 and P25,000, respectively, are in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence.[46] However, considering that the penalty imposed should have been death but was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, the amount of moral damages is increased from P50,000 to P75,000, and the award of exemplary damages from P25,000 to P30,000.[47] These awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.[48]

GR No. 198110

2013-07-31

PEOPLE v. WILSON ROMAN

REYES, J.

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. It requires only the establishment of the fact of death as a result of the crime and that the accused-appellant is responsible thereto.[56] However, in order to conform with the prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of victim must be raised to P75,000.00.[57]

GR No. 181539

2013-07-24

PEOPLE v. EDWIN ALEMAN Y LONGHAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The civil indemnity is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, the current amount of civil indemnity awarded in cases of murder.[37] Robbery with homicide belongs to that class of felony denominated as "Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons"[38] under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and the killing or death of a person is committed "by reason or on occasion of the robbery." The increase in the amount of civil indemnity is called for as the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, like murder, involves a greater degree of criminal propensity than homicide alone where the civil indemnity awarded is P50,000.00.

GR No. 181444

2013-07-17

BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO Y BULAWAN v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Regarding the award of damages, we affirm the trial court and CA in ordering the petitioner to pay the heirs of Generoso Hispano the amount of P50,000 as moral damages. In cases of murder and homicide, the award of moral damages is mandatory, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[32] Similarly, the CA correctly awarded his heirs the amount of P171,128.75 as actual damages, as said amount which was spent for funeral and burial expenses was duly supported by receipts. However, as regards the award of civil indemnity, the same should be increased to P75,000 to conform with recent jurisprudence.[33] Also, the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages which recent jurisprudence pegs at P30,000[34] considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Lastly, we impose on all the monetary awards for damages interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid, consistent with current policy.

GR No. 192179

2013-07-03

PEOPLE v. LITO HATSERO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In all, we find no cogent reason to overturn the factual findings of the appellate court. However, civil liabilities awarded by the Court of Appeals require modification in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. It is settled that 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.[24] Since there was no award of moral damages in the lower courts, we hereby hold accused-appellant Hatsero additionally liable for the amount of P50,000.00 in moral damages pursuant to the Decision of this Court in People v. Malicdem.[25] Likewise in accordance to the amounts awarded in Malicdem, where the accused was similarly convicted of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, the Court modifies the amount of civil indemnity and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively. Furthermore, since the receipted expenses of the victim's family was less than P25,000.00, temperate damages in said amount should be awarded in lieu of actual damages.[26]

GR No. 198789

2013-06-03

PEOPLE v. REGGIE BERNARDO

REYES, J.

Second, in light of our ruling in People v. Malicdem[31] and People v. Laurio[32], the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of Efren is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, while the exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.

GR No. 199713

2013-02-20

PEOPLE v. MARK JOSEPH ZAPUIZ Y RAMOS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Anent the award of damages, the Court of Appeals properly ordered Jaymart to pay Emmanuel's heirs the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PSO,OOO.OO as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,[24] and P42,600.00 as actual damages. In crimes, interest may be adjudicated in a proper case as part of the damages in the discretion of the court. The Court considers it proper to now impose interest on the civil indemnities, moral damages, and exemplary damages being awarded in this case, considering that there has been delay in the recovery. The imposition is declared to be also a natural and probable consequence of the acts of the accused complained of. The interest imposed is the legal rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this judgment.[25]

	GR No. 213383 2015-06-22	PEOPLE v. ERNIE INCIONG Y ORENSE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In order for self-defense to be appreciated, accused-appellant must be able to prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[21] An accused who invokes self-defense has the burden to prove all the aforesaid elements, the most important of which is unlawful aggression. Being the basic requirement in a plea of self-defense,[22] unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[23] No self-defense can exist without unlawful aggression since there is no attack that the accused will have to prevent or repel.[24]
	GR No. 161308 2014-01-15	RICARDO MEDINA v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation.[12] This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[13] But here Ricardo has not projected any strong and compelling reasons to sway the Court into rejecting or revising such factual findings and evaluation in his favor.
	GR No. 191722 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. GERRY SABANGAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The grant of actual damages in the total amount of P106,354.00, representing funeral and burial expenses, is proper being duly supported by receipts. The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is also correct pursuant to recent rulings of the Court.[55] However, the Court increases the awards of civil indemnity and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively, in accordance with the latest jurisprudence.[56]
	GR No. 201445 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. HERMENIGILDO MAGLENTE Y MEDINA REYES, J.
Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00[42] was also correctly awarded by the CA. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[43] Meanwhile, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 was also properly awarded.[44]
	GR No. 190862 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. RICARDO DEARO SERENO, C.J.
As to the award of damages to the heirs of each victim, we find that the awards of civil indemnity and temperate damages made by the CA in the amounts of P75,000 and P25,000, respectively, are in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence.[46] However, considering that the penalty imposed should have been death but was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, the amount of moral damages is increased from P50,000 to P75,000, and the award of exemplary damages from P25,000 to P30,000.[47] These awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.[48]
	GR No. 198110 2013-07-31	PEOPLE v. WILSON ROMAN REYES, J.
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. It requires only the establishment of the fact of death as a result of the crime and that the accused-appellant is responsible thereto.[56] However, in order to conform with the prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of victim must be raised to P75,000.00.[57]
	GR No. 181539 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. EDWIN ALEMAN Y LONGHAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The civil indemnity is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, the current amount of civil indemnity awarded in cases of murder.[37] Robbery with homicide belongs to that class of felony denominated as "Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons"[38] under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and the killing or death of a person is committed "by reason or on occasion of the robbery." The increase in the amount of civil indemnity is called for as the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, like murder, involves a greater degree of criminal propensity than homicide alone where the civil indemnity awarded is P50,000.00.
	GR No. 181444 2013-07-17	BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO Y BULAWAN v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Regarding the award of damages, we affirm the trial court and CA in ordering the petitioner to pay the heirs of Generoso Hispano the amount of P50,000 as moral damages. In cases of murder and homicide, the award of moral damages is mandatory, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[32] Similarly, the CA correctly awarded his heirs the amount of P171,128.75 as actual damages, as said amount which was spent for funeral and burial expenses was duly supported by receipts. However, as regards the award of civil indemnity, the same should be increased to P75,000 to conform with recent jurisprudence.[33] Also, the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages which recent jurisprudence pegs at P30,000[34] considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Lastly, we impose on all the monetary awards for damages interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid, consistent with current policy.
	GR No. 192179 2013-07-03	PEOPLE v. LITO HATSERO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In all, we find no cogent reason to overturn the factual findings of the appellate court. However, civil liabilities awarded by the Court of Appeals require modification in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. It is settled that 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.[24] Since there was no award of moral damages in the lower courts, we hereby hold accused-appellant Hatsero additionally liable for the amount of P50,000.00 in moral damages pursuant to the Decision of this Court in People v. Malicdem.[25] Likewise in accordance to the amounts awarded in Malicdem, where the accused was similarly convicted of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, the Court modifies the amount of civil indemnity and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively. Furthermore, since the receipted expenses of the victim's family was less than P25,000.00, temperate damages in said amount should be awarded in lieu of actual damages.[26]
	GR No. 198789 2013-06-03	PEOPLE v. REGGIE BERNARDO REYES, J.
Second, in light of our ruling in People v. Malicdem[31] and People v. Laurio[32], the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of Efren is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, while the exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.
	GR No. 199713 2013-02-20	PEOPLE v. MARK JOSEPH ZAPUIZ Y RAMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent the award of damages, the Court of Appeals properly ordered Jaymart to pay Emmanuel's heirs the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PSO,OOO.OO as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,[24] and P42,600.00 as actual damages. In crimes, interest may be adjudicated in a proper case as part of the damages in the discretion of the court. The Court considers it proper to now impose interest on the civil indemnities, moral damages, and exemplary damages being awarded in this case, considering that there has been delay in the recovery. The imposition is declared to be also a natural and probable consequence of the acts of the accused complained of. The interest imposed is the legal rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this judgment.[25]

PEOPLE v. MARCIAL MALICDEM Y MOLINA