This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-05-25 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The totality of evidence presented is convincing and points to appellant as being a person engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses identifying appellant to be a seller of illegal drugs appears to be categorical and unfabricated. No ill motive on the part of the witnesses has been shown to tarnish their testimony. Such positive evidence certainly prevails over mere denial and alibi which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving unworthy of credible weight in law.[10] | |||||
|
2000-03-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[11] The rule admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.[12] Neither exception can be found in this case. Moreover, the Court is not precluded from making its own assessment of the probative value of the testimony of the witnesses on the basis of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs) thereof.[13] Based on our review of the TSNs, we find no reason to depart from the factual findings of the trial court. | |||||
|
2000-03-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the second issue, the trial court convicted Alejandro on the basis of Romeo Pampilo's identification in court and the finding of conspiracy. As a general rule, the assessment of credibility of witnesses is a function best undertaken by the trial court, and its findings are accorded great weight, if not finality, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[22] In this case, we find certain material inconsistencies in the testimony of Romeo Pampilo, which militate against the finding of guilt as to Alejandro. During trial, Romeo Pampilo testified that he saw Joseph Marquita stab Sergio because he was awakened when blood spurted from Sergio's stab wound. He also saw Joseph stab his mother, and sister, Rosalie.[23] Thus - | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Anent the issue of credibility of witnesses, the elementary rule is that appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. The latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[18] The rule admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.[19] No inconsistencies in Colo's testimony were pointed out by appellant. Neither does appellant contend that the trial court erred in relying on the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2000-02-28 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| As to the award of actual damages, the same cannot be based on the allegation of a witness without any competent document to support such claim.[32] Proof is required to be adequately supported by receipts.[33] The amount of P23,000.00 awarded by the trial court as funeral expenses should be reduced. Georgita Achumbre, widow of the deceased-victim, testified that she spent P7,000.00 for embalming and funeral cortege as evidenced by a receipt issued by the Green Hills Memorial Homes which is marked as Exhibit "H"[34] and another P9,300.00 as internment fee as shown in the receipt issued by the Divine Shepherd Memorial Gardens, Inc. which is marked as Exhibit "I".[35] She also spent "about P5,000.00 or more" for a one (1) week vigil, but no receipt was presented;[36] hence, the same cannot be included in the award for actual damages.[37] A party is entitled to compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.[38] The amount of "not less than P2,000.00" allegedly spent during the 40th day[39] cannot likewise be considered as the same was incurred after a considerable lapse of time from the burial of the victim.[40] Hence, only the total amount of P16,300.00 as actual damages should be awarded to the heirs of the deceased. | |||||