This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-01-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in line with current jurisprudence[48] on heinous crimes where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, the award for moral damages has been increased from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00, while the award for exemplary damages has likewise been increased from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00. Hence, while the CA correctly affirmed the trial court's award of P100,000.00 as moral damages, the award of civil indemnity and exemplary damages in the amounts of P50,000.00 each should be both increased to P100,000.00. The award of moral damages is called for in view of the violent death of the victim, and these do not require any allegation or proof of the emotional sufferings of the heirs.[49] The award of exemplary damages is also proper because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of use of unlicensed firearm and use of a motor vehicle in the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Absent any showing that the lower court overlooked circumstances which would overturn the final outcome of the case, due respect must be made to its assessment and factual findings. Such findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[31] | |||||
|
2013-01-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| x x x [T]he task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. x x x[38] | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Upon review, the Court has determined that the present case does not fall under any of the exceptions. In resolving the present petition, we then defer to the factual findings made by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA when the case was brought before it on appeal. The Court has, after all, consistently ruled that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. Factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.[7] | |||||
|
2012-03-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We hardly need to remind that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and of weighing their credibility is best left to the trial judge by virtue of the first-hand impressions he derives while the witnesses testify before him.[13] The demeanor on the witness chair of persons sworn to tell the truth in judicial proceedings is a significant element of judicial adjudication because it can draw the line between fact and fancy. Their forthright answers or hesitant pauses, their quivering voices or angry tones, their flustered looks or sincere gazes, their modest blushes or guilty blanches - all these can reveal if the witnesses are telling the truth or lying in their teeth.[14] As the final appellate reviewer in this case, then, we bow to the age-old norm to accord the utmost respect to the findings and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses reached by the trial judge on account of his unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and on account of his personal access to the various indicia available but not reflected in the record.[15] | |||||
|
2012-02-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[13] When the credibility of the eyewitness is at issue, we give due deference and respect to the assessment made by the RTC, absent any showing that it had overlooked circumstances that would have affected the final outcome of the case.[14] Thus, once a guilty verdict has been rendered, the appellant has the burden to clearly prove on appeal that errors in the appreciation of the evidence committed by the lower courts. | |||||
|
2011-10-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "[W]hen death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages."[47] | |||||
|
2011-04-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of Glodil and his mother finding them to be trustworthy and believable. The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. [55] It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. [56] Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the CA affirms the said findings, and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case. [57] In the instant case, the Court finds no reason to depart from this rule. Appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the RTC and the CA overlooked certain facts and circumstances which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. | |||||