Gerbero Damages

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ESMAEL GERVERO,
FLORENCIO ARBOLONIO,
DANILO CASTIGADOR, CELSO
SOLOMON AND EDUARDO
BANES
GR NO 206725, JULY 11,2018, THIRD DIVISION, MARTIRES J.
That on or about the 25th day of November, 1991, in the Municipality of Lemery,
Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring and confederating with one another, with deliberate intent and
decided purpose to kill, armed with firearms, they were then provided, through treachery, evident
premeditation and superior strength, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
attack, assault, shoot and hit HERNANDO VILLEGAS, JOSE VILLEGAS and BENITO
BASUG, JR.with said firearms inflicting upon said Hernando Villegas, Jose Villegas and Benito
Basug, Jr. numerous gunshot wounds on different parts of their bodies which caused their deaths
immediately thereafter.
The Regional Trial Court's Ruling

In its decision, the RTC found the accused guilty of murder. It found the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses straightforward, credible, and inaccord with the physical evidence.
With regard to the defense of fulfillment of duty, the trial court ruled that the attendant
circumstances leading to the killing of the three victims by the accused clearly showed the
absence of the two essential requisites for such defense to prosper. It declared that while it may
be initially said that the accused acted in obedience to the order of their superior to conduct foot
patrol and take up ambush position at the place of the incident, they undoubtedly exceeded in the
performance of their duties by immediately firing successive shots on the three unsuspecting
victims. The R TC observed that the accused approached their victims and mercilessly sprayed
them with bullets to completely silence them.The court a quo further held that the defense of
misencounter due to b mistake of fact was unbelievable. It noted that just a few hours before the
incident happened, Bafies, Castigador, and two other unidentified CAFGU members came to the
house of Hernando to ask for money, indicating that they knew each other; and that Gervero was
likewise bound by his testimony that he knew Hernando. Lastly, the RTC concluded that the
suddenness of the attack and the lack of opportunity for the victims to defend themselves
constituted treachery.
The Court of Appeals Ruling

In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused but modified the
aniount of damages awarded. It pronounced that even in cases of arrest, the use of unnecessary
force, the wantonly violent treatment of the offender, and the resort to dangerous means, when
such apprehension could be done otherwise, were not justified acts. The appellate court opined
that the accused were entirely careless in not first verifying the identities of the victims; such
negligence diminished the defense of mistake of fact. It added that if self-defense could be
negated by the manner it was allegedly employed, the sheer number of gunshot wounds
demonstrated the accused's mens rea.
ISSUE:
WON the accused are liable to pay damages?
HELD:
Yes. Pursuant to Art. 248 of the RPC, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to
death. Applying Art. 63(2) of the RPC, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties, i.e., reclusion
perpetua, shall be imposed upon the accused-appellants in view of the absence of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstance that attended the killing of Jose, Hernando, and Benito.Following
the jurisprudence laid down by the Court in People v.Jugueta, 28 accused-appellants are ordered
to pay the heirs of Hernando Villegas, Jose Villegas, and Benito Basug, Jr. P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity,P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.29 It was also
ruled in Jugueta that when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in
court, the amount of PS0,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded. In addition, interest at
the rate of six percent per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from the date of
finality of this decision until fully paid.
MATEO ENCARNACION (Deceased), substituted by his heirs,namely: ELSA

DEPLIANENCARNACION,KRIZZA MARIE D. ENCARNACION, LORETA
ENCARNACION,CARMELITA E.STADERMAN, CORAZON S.
ENCARNACION, RIZALINA ENCARNACION-PARONG, ET AL.
vs THOMAS JOHNSON
GR NO 192285, JULY 11,2018, FIRST DIVISION, JARDELEZA J.
FACTS
On October 6, 2000, respondent filed an action for breach of contract

with prayer for damages and costs against spouses Narvin Edwarson (Narvin)
and Mary Mitchie Edwarson (also known as Mary Encarnacion; hereinafter
shall be referred to as Mary), Mateo's daughter, before the Vancouver
Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada. Respondent
alleged that Narvin and Mary convinced him to invest his money and personal
property in a vehicle leasing company owned by the couple, which turned out
to be a fraudulent business scheme. The couple neither deposited the promised
profits into his account nor gave an accounting or explanation as to where his
funds went.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia gave due course to
respondent's action and ordered summons to be served upon Narvin and
Mary. While service of summons was being attempted, respondent moved that
the Supreme Court of British Columbia grant him a Mareva injunction, with
ex Juris affect, to restrain Narvin and Mary from dealing with any of their
assets except as is necessary for payment of ordinary living expenses or to
carry on their ordinary business.6 On October 6, 2000, the Supreme Court of
British Columbia issued a Mareva injunction7 and authorized respondent,
among others, to obtain orders in foreign jurisdictions which would permit its
enforcement in those jurisdictions.
On March 30, 2004, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution17 authorizing

the sheriff to attach sufficient properties belonging to Narvin and Mary to
satisfy the judgment award. On August 3, 2004, the RTC, acting on
respondent's motion to modify the Writ of Execution (to include in the writ
the properties under the name of Mateo whose title and tax declarations were
previously annotated), modified the Writ of Execution. 18 It issued an
Amended Writ ofExecution19 on September 9, 2004 authorizing the sheriff to
include the properties registered in the name of Mateo as subject of the
execution.
Subsequently, 13 levied properties not covered by certificates of title
were sold in public auction on June 23, 2004, wherein respondent placed the highest bid of Pl
0,000,000.00.20 The properties listed in the Certificate of
Sale21 were: ( 1) a coco/agricultural land covered by Tax Declaration No. 016-
0322A in the name of "Mary Mitchie Encarnacion;" and (2) a
commercial/agricultural land covered by Tax Declaration No. 007-0410AR in
the name of"Mary Mitchie E. Edwardson."
ISSUE
WON the highest bidder can own the property in an auction sale?
HELD
No. The rule is clear and inflexible: aliens are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or
private lands inthe Philippines, save only in constitutionally recognized exceptions. There is no
rule more settled than this constitutional prohibition, as more and more aliens attempt
to circumvent the provision by trying to own lands through another. In a long line of cases, we
have settled issues that directly or indirectly involve the above constitutional provision. We had
cases where aliens wanted that a particular property be declared as part of their father's
estate; that they be reimbursed the funds used in purchasing a property titled in the name of
another; that an implied trust be declared in their (aliens') favor; and that a contract of sale
be nullified !or their lack of consent.
In light of this, we nullify the auction sales conducted on June 23, 2004 and November 29,
2006 where respondent was declared the highest bidder, as well as the proceedings which led to
the acquisition of ownership by respondent over the lands involved. Article 1409(1) and (7) of
the Civil Code states that all contracts whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law or
public policy, and those expressly prohibited or declared void by law are inexistent and void
from the beginning. We thus remand the case back to Branch 72 of the RTC of Olongapo City, to
conduct anew the auction sale of the levied properties, and to exclude respondent from
partcipating as bidder.
VISTACION R. REBULTAN,
CECILOU R. BAYONA, CECILIO
REBULTAN JR., and VILNA R. LABRADOR vs SPOUSES EDMUNDO DAGANTA and
MARVELYN P. DAGANTA, and WILLIE VILORIA
GR NO 197108, JULY 4,2018, FIRST DIVISION, JARDELEZA J.
FACTS
On May 3, 1999, at about 6:30 in the morning, along the National

Highway in Barangay Mabanglit, Cabangan, Zambales, Cecilio Rebultan, Sr.
(Rebultan, Sr.) and his driver, Jaime Lomotos (Lomotos), were on board a Kia
Ceres, on their way to report for work in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) in Masinloc, Zambales when they figured in a
vehicular accident with an Isuzu-powered passenger jeepney driven by Willie
Viloria (Viloria).6 The Kia Ceres was traveling northbound to Iba, Zambales,
while the jeepney was traveling southbound to Cabangan, Zambales. 7 The
powerful impact resulted in serious physical injuries to Rebultan, Sr. and
Lomotos, as well as physical damage to both vehicles. Rebultan, Sr., who was
60 years old8 at that time, later died from his injuries.9
On February 15, 2000, the heirs of Rebultan, Sr. (petitioners) filed a
complaint10 for damages against Viloria, and Spouses Edmundo and Marvelyn
P. Daganta (spouses Daganta) as the owners of the jeepney (collectively,
respondents). Petitioners prayed for compensation for the loss of life and
earning capacity of Rebultan, Sr., actual and moral damages, attorney's and
appearance fees, as well as other just and equitable reliefs.
After trial, the RTC issued its Decision 16 dated July 24, 2008 finding
Viloria negligent in driving the jeepney which led to the death of Rebultan,
Sr. Spouses Daganta were found vicariously liable as the employers of
Viloria. Together, they were held solidarily liable to pay the heirs ofRebultan,
Sr. the following sums: (a) P71,857.15 as actual damages; (b) P50,000.00 as
moral damages; (c) Pl,552.731.72 as loss of earning capacity; and (d)
PS0,000.00 as attorney's fees. The RTC concluded that Viloria's continuous
driving even when turning left going to a street is the proximate cause of the
accident. It dismissed the third-party complaint against Lomotos. 17
Respondents appealed the Decision before the CA but only as to the
finding of negligence on the part of Viloria. They no longer appealed the
dismissal of the third-party complaint.
In its Assailed Decision, the CA reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed
the complaint. 19 It ruled that it was Lomotos (not Viloria) who was negligent.
Under Section 42(a) and (b), Article III, Chapter IV of Republic Act No.
413620 (R.A. No. 4136), Viloria had the right of way, being the driver of the
vehicle on the right, and because he had already turned towards the left of the
intersection. 21 This, according to the CA, is the import of the ruling in
Caminos, Jr. v. People22 which it found squarely applicable to this case. It
held that Lomotos, being in violation of a traffic regulation, is presumed to be
negligent under Article 2185 of the Civil Code. 23 There being no negligence
on the part of Viloria, the spouses Daganta's vicarious liability cannot be
imposed. 24 The CA noted that while respondents filed a third-party complaint
against Lomotos, it cannot reverse its dismissal because respondents did not appeal .
ISSUE
WON both the drivers are solidary liable?
HELD
Yes.In sum, we hold that both drivers were negligent when they failed to
observe basic traffic rules designed for the safety of their fellow motorists and
passengers. This makes them joint tortfeasors who are solidarily liable to the
heirs of the deceased. 51 However, since the dismissal of the third-party
complaint against Lomotos was not appealed by respondents, and Lomotos is
not party to the case before us, we have no authority to render judgment
against him.

Gerbero Damages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gerbero Damages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gerbero Damages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ESMAEL GERVERO,

The Regional Trial Court's Ruling

The Court of Appeals Ruling

MATEO ENCARNACION (Deceased), substituted by his heirs,namely: ELSA

On October 6, 2000, respondent filed an action for breach of contract

On March 30, 2004, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution17 authorizing

GR NO 197108, JULY 4,2018, FIRST DIVISION, JARDELEZA J.

On May 3, 1999, at about 6:30 in the morning, along the National

WON both the drivers are solidary liable?

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.