This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In People v. Galapin,[73] People v. Continente,[74] United States v. Lasada,[75] People v. Mobe,[76] People v. Irinea,[77] People v. Rillorta,[78] People v. Cagalingan,[79] People v. Villanueva,[80] People v. Magno,[81] People v. del Rosario,[82] People v. Yrat,[83] People v. Saul,[84] and People v. Tamayo,[85] the principal and accomplice were ordered to pay jointly and severally the entire amount of the civil indemnity awarded to the victim. In People v. Sotto,[86] the accomplice was ordered to pay half of the amount of civil indemnity imposed by the trial court, while the principal was liable for the other half. In People v. Toring,[87] the principal, accomplice and the accessory were made jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the civil indemnity. | |||||
|
2000-09-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The core issue indeed is the credibility of Arimbuyutan. In this regard, findings of the trial court as a rule are accorded great weight and respect since it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, hence, availed of the various aids to determine whether the witnesses were telling the truth or concocting lies.[4] Unless substantial facts and circumstances have been overlooked or misunderstood, which if considered would materially affect the result of the case, the findings of the trial court should be sustained.[5] In the present case, an examination of the records discloses that no such facts and circumstances of substance were overlooked or misunderstood by the trial court. Arimbuyutan testified in this manner - | |||||