This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2004-07-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner also fails to support his opposition to the award of attorney's fees. The recovery of such fees in the concept of actual or compensatory damages is allowed under the circumstances. Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney's fees and the expenses of litigation are awarded when the court deems them just and equitable.[40] Considering that the trial took almost two years to complete,[41] and that the agreed attorney's fees of the private prosecutor engaged to represent complainant[42] is twenty-five percent (25%) of the sum due in each case, the award of P18,000 as attorney's fees for each of the cases is just and reasonable. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Under PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm , such use of an unlicensed firearm is considered as an aggravating circumstance which if appreciated warrants the imposition of the death penalty.[26] However the accusatory portion of the Information merely mentions that the crime was committed with the use of a firearm but neglected to state that the same was illegally possessed or unlicensed. Thus, the trial court's non-appreciation of said circumstance was proper. | |||||
|
2001-12-21 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Further, Jonathan Aromin categorically and positively identified accused-appellant as the person who pursued and shot him at close range. This Court has no reason to doubt his testimony for even accused-appellant admitted that he and the witness were in good terms prior to the incident.[35] Neither does this Court have any ground to question the veracity of Leonila Lopez's testimony that she saw accused-appellant shoot Jonathan Aromin as there was no proved ill motive on her part. Thus, where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why prosecution witnesses should testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, such testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[36] Besides, it has been an established rule that unless the trial judge overlooked certain facts of substance and value, which if considered might affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses.[37] We find no reason to deviate from this well-entrenched principle. | |||||
|
2000-09-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Q: While you were asleep on May 30, 1994, at 2:00 in the morning, can you still recall if you were awakened and why? A: I was awakened because I was surprised. Q: Why were you surprised? A: Because he was on top of me. Q: Who was the person on top of you? A: Elming Cajara. Q: How do you know that it was Elming? A: Because there was light for the whole morning. Q: Where was this light being placed? A: On the altar. Q: How far was the light to the place where you were lying down? A: About two meters. Q: Did Elming say anything to you when he was on top of you? A: Yes, ma'am x x x x He said keep quiet x x x x If you will make a noise I will kill you. Q: What else? A: I shouted x x x x Help, help Manding. Q: Who is this Manding you are referring to? A: Meling. Q: Your elder sister? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And when Elming Cajara warned you not to make any noise did you observe if he has (sic) any weapon with him? A: Yes he has x x x x Sundang. Q: Where was the bolo? A: Near the head x x x x Elming Cajara at the time he slept he has a bolo with him. Q: Where is this bolo you are referring to? A: Near the head he was holding. Q: He was holding the bolo with what hand? A: Right hand. Q: About you when you shouted, what else did you do while he was on top of you. A: I kept on asking for help because he was holding my two hands over my head. Q: With what hand he was holding your hands as he was holding the bolo? A: When he told me not to make any noise he was holding my two hands. Q: With what hand and how did he hold your two hands? A: His right hand. Q: How about his left hand? A: Undressing me. Q: What was being undressed? (sic) A: My maong pants x x x x Garterized. Q: Do (sic) you have panty at that time? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: How about your panty, was it undressed? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Up to what portion of your body were you undressed? A: Middle part of my legs. Q: As you were shouting for your Manding to help you, what did your Manding do? A: After I was shouting for help for a long time, Manding grabbed Elming from me and Meling punched Elming hitting his eye. Q: When Meling grabbed and punched Elming, what was Elming doing at that time? A: He inserted his finger into my vagina after which he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q: What did you do when Elming inserted his finger into your vagina? A: I was trying to resist (from) him but I could not as he was holding my hands. Q: While he was inserting his penis to your vagina, what did you do? A: I was trying to resist and shouting and I was weak x x x x Q: After Meling pulled her husband, what happened next? A: Meling fell because she was punched by Elming x x x x She was hit on her mouth and she was kicked x x x x Q: After kicking Meling what did Elming do? A: After Elming kicked Meling and I was able to put on my panty Elming came back. Q: When Elming went back to you, what did Elming do to you? A: x x x x he undressed me again x x x x he abused me again x x x x he was inserting his finger and penis into my vagina. Q: Was he able to insert again his penis into your vagina? A: Yes, ma'am x x x x Q: For how many times have (sic) he inserted his penis? A: Twice.[8] The argument of the accused is untenable that the testimony of his common-law wife that there was no rape should have been believed by the trial court because she was Marita's half-sister who would naturally protect Marita's honor if she was indeed raped. Not every witness to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the expectation of mankind.[9] We have noted that in some instances it was but natural for witnesses not to come to the victim's rescue for fear of their lives, especially when threatened with harm should they do so. Self preservation is still recognized as the most fundamental human instinct.[10] | |||||