This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
PANGANIBAN, C.J. |
||||
| witnesses, to present cannot be dictated by the accused or even by the trial court.[69] If petitioners believed that Takao Aoyagi's testimony was important to their case, they should have presented him as their witness.[70] Finally, Acejas claims that his Comment/Objection to the prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence was not resolved by the Sandiganbayan.[71] In that Comment/Objection, he had noted the lateness in the filing of the Formal Offer of Evidence. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly awarded P50,000 as civil indemnity for the wrongful death of the victim. As for funeral expenses, the court can only award such amount as are supported by proper receipts.[34] The prosecution proved funeral expenses of P14,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 2084 issued by Funeraria Mendoza and burial expenses of P9,950 as shown by Receipt No. 0851 issued by Bustos Memorial Park,[35] aggregating P23,950. However, Mrs. Adelan also testified that she spent P60,000 for the traditional wake of her husband.[36] The defense did not object to this. The rule is that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted. The trial court may consider such evidence in arriving at its judgment.[37] The trial court's award of P83,950 for actual damages is therefore correct. | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The accused seemed unconfident (sic) when he related before the Court his version of the stabbing incident. He seemed anxious on the witness stand and he appeared to be hiding something as he could not deliver his statements smoothly and naturally. Certainly, these circumstances in his personal behavior as keenly observed on the witness stand, ruined his credibility.[21] With respect to the matter of credibility of witnesses, the well-settled rule is that in the absence of a clear showing that some fact or circumstance of weight or substance had been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied,[22] the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses and their testimonies would not be disturbed on appeal. For the determination of credibility is the domain of the trial court, and the matter of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses is best performed by it.[23] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As is often the case, the question here is whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt petitioner's guilt. In general, we adhere to the principle that the assessment made by the trial judge of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[26] Having heard the testimony of the witnesses and observed their demeanor on the witness stand, the judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility.[27] However, where there is a showing that some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied, we will not hesitate to make our own evaluation of the evidence.[28] Such is the case here. | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| This Court is convinced that the trial court did not err in concluding that BALLENAS is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the forcible abduction and rape of WILMA. In asserting his innocence, BALLENAS foists the defense of alibi, a defense that has long been considered as intrinsically the weakest of all defenses.[7] Basic is the rule that the defense of alibi should be rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the crime because alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses.[8] | |||||