This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Witnesses need not know the names of the assailants, as long as they recognize the latter's faces. What is imperative is that, on the basis of their personal knowledge, the witnesses are positive as to the physical identification of the perpetrators, as obtained in this case.[36] Thus, it was sufficient that Arobo and Samad were able to identify respondent in the crime scene and when they took the witness stand.[37] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Following current jurisprudence, appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victims, for each of the two counts of homicide, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00.[31] | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The RTC awarded P138,070.00 as actual damages to the heirs of Elmer. It appears that out of this amount, only P61,635.00 was supported by receipts. The difference in the amounts was based solely on the submissions by Elmer's widow. For one too be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[99] Hence, we reduce the awarded actual damages to P61,635.00. | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Such inconsistency will not discredit her. It is settled that certain discrepancies between declarations made in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand seldom could discredit the declarant. Sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiries. They are generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given in open court. Our case law is unequivocal in saying that the testimony of a witness prevails over an affidavit. In short, affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open-court declarations; or, more bluntly stated, whenever there is inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[48] The Court has consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects that would justify the reversal of a judgment of conviction.[49] In this case, when Mrs. Costales was confronted with this contradiction, she explained that she never told the police that the petitioner and the victim had a fistfight. What she said was they had a quarrel; that is, they faced each other and exchanged words. | |||||