This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the deportment and manner of testifying of Ecatan and accused-appellant, on one hand, and that of AAA, on the other, concluded that it was AAA who was telling the truth. We have repeatedly held that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are "entitled to great weight and respect, if not conclusiveness, for we accept that the trial court was in the best position as the original trier of the facts in whose direct presence and under whose keen observation the witnesses rendered their respective versions of the events that made up the occurrences constituting the ingredients of the offenses charged. The direct appreciation of testimonial demeanor during examination, veracity, sincerity and candor was foremost the trial court's domain, not that of a reviewing court that had no similar access to the witnesses at the time they testified."[22] Thus, where the accused-appellant, as in the case at bar, fails to show that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals overlooked a material fact that otherwise would change the outcome, or misappreciated a circumstance of consequence in their assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of their respective versions, this Court is constrained to affirm such uniform factual findings. | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
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] | |||||