This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-01-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As to damages. The civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense is not affected by the appropriate disposition measures and shall be enforced in accordance with law.[80] This Court affirms both the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 awarded by the lower courts in favor of AAA. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Case law also requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of proof because from the nature of the crime, it can be assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[81] | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Aguilar,[29] the Court explained that: Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case. This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court. Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| To reiterate a long-settled rule, the Court will not disturb the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, save when it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, when considered, will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[17] None of the exceptions obtain in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is a hornbook doctrine that the defense of denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving, and merits no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[14] | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| [38] People v. Manuel Aguilar, G.R. No. 177749, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 509, 522; People v. Blancaflor, 466 Phil. 86, 96 (2004). | |||||