This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-11-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.[42] This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the CA, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, these findings are generally binding upon this Court.[43] We see no reason to depart from this rule. | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| For the crime of attempted murder, the penalty shall be prision mayor, since Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code states that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.[29] Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in this case, the maximum of the sentence should be within the range of prision mayor in its medium term, which has a duration of eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years; and that the minimum should be within the range of prision correccional, which has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Therefore, the penalty imposed should have been imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, contrary to appellant's protestation, we find no cogent reason to question the veracity of the testimony of Famisaran as well as that of the other witnesses for the prosecution. We have reiterated in jurisprudence that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[15] In all, we concur with the trial court in setting aside the inconsequential differences in the prosecution's witnesses' testimonies and in pointing out that their testimonies actually corroborated each other as to rolling of a grenade onto the dance floor and their respective positions from the blast. | |||||
|
2013-06-03 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Third, the civil indemnity awarded to Reah is reduced from P30,000.00 to P25,000.00, to conform to our ruling in People v. Adallom[33]. However, Reah is declared also entitled to P40,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, consistent with our ruling in People v. Nelmida[34] and People v. Punzalan[35]. | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that "when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This dictum would be more true if the findings were affirmed by the CA, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, these findings are generally binding upon this Court."[20] | |||||