This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2001-10-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the State, points out that the victim testified that the penis of the appellant did not entirely penetrate her vagina. Thus, her testimony was consistent with the medical findings that there were no hymenal lacerations. Furthermore, the OSG adds "that it is highly inconceivable for a young barrio lass, inexperienced with the ways of the world, to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo medical examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial and tarnish her family's honor and reputation unless she was motivated by a potent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her."[19] Further, the OSG stresses that the findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, as the trial court is in the best position to make an honest determination of the witnesses' deportment during trial.[20] | |||||
|
2000-06-19 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling warrants the imposition of exemplary damages against the appellant.[34] Such damages, the award of which depends upon the Court's discretion, shall be a part of the civil liability that may be imposed upon the appellant.[35] However, we agree with the Solicitor General that the trial court overlooked certain evidentiary requirements in the award of actual damages. Actual damages cannot be allowed unless supported by evidence on record.[36] The trial court mainly based its award of P32,892.00 on the photocopy of the receipt issued by the funeral parlor[37] and on a receipt issued by a livestock agricultural corporation.[38] The prosecution reserved its right to present the original copy of the receipt of the funeral parlor evidencing payment of the amount of P27,000.00[39] but it does not appear on record that it indeed presented that original copy. On the other hand, the receipt issued by the Broadway Livestock Agricultural Corporation in favor of one Sotero Espiritu was in full payment of the amount of P5,092.00 for an undecipherable purpose which the prosecution claimed was for "expenses."[40] However, considering that these "expenses" were not explained and the absence of a duly established connection between the death of the victim and the "expenses" paid to a livestock agricultural corporation, the receipt can not be given evidentiary weight. | |||||