This case has been cited 5 times or more.
2010-06-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
Moreover, the Court finds no cogent reason to review much less depart now from the findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA that appellant's version is undeserving of credence. It is doctrinally settled that the assessments of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. These are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. Verily, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case.[32] We find none in this case. | |||||
2000-11-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
As to the civil indemnity, the trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. In rape cases, an award for moral damages is made without need for pleading or proof as to the basis thereof.[40] The award of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages is also proper. Exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one (1) or more aggravating circumstances.[41] We appreciate accused-appellant's relationship to Adora as her brother-in-law as a generic aggravating circumstance. However, the trial court failed to award civil indemnity to her. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is also automatically given to the offended party for the fact of the commission of rape.[42] | |||||
2000-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
It is doctrinally settled that the assessments of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. These are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. Verily, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case.[16] And in People v. Deleverio, this Court ruled that:It is axiomatic to point out, furthermore, that in an appeal, where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are entitled to and given the highest degree of respect.[17] Moreover, in People v. Reynaldo, we reiterated the principle that: | |||||
2000-04-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
We note that the trial court did not award damages to the victim. Under prevailing jurisprudence, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically awarded to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of the rape.[22] As regards moral damages, the requirement of proof of mental and physical suffering has been dispensed with since we recognize the victim's injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the crime of rape to warrant the award per se,[23] which we also grant in the amount of P50,000.00. The amount of P25,000.00 for exemplary damages is imposed to deter other fathers with similar perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their own daughters.[24] |