Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RESTY HORMINA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 173243 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO CASELA TINGA, J.
After carefully sifting the evidence on record, we find no reason to depart from the findings of the RTC on the credibility of Makabenta. As a general rule, the trial court is in the best position to determine facts and to assess the credibility of witnesses as it is in a unique position to observe the witnesses' deportment while testifying, an opportunity denied the appellate court.[27] Hence, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless: (1) it is found to be clearly arbitrary or unfounded; (2) some substantial fact or circumstance that could materially affect the disposition of the case was overlooked, misunderstood, or misinterpreted; or (3) the trial judge gravely abused his or her discretion.[28]
	GR NO. 173243 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO CASELA TINGA, J.
Ultimately, the presentation of Makabenta at the trial as the sole eyewitness to the whole event should not by itself erode his credibility. It is worthy to note that Makabenta testified with candor and consistency in recounting the material events of the crime. A witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent is a credible witness.[32] What is more, where conditions of visibility are favorable and the eyewitness' assertion as to the identity of the assailant is not tainted with bias, said assertion as to the identity of the malefactor can very well be accepted.[33] There is no evidence to show any dubious or improper circumstances or motive why Makabenta would prevaricate against appellant and his co-accused or falsely implicate them in a heinous crime as he was friends not only with the victim, but with appellant and Insigne as well.[34] Hence, appellant's bare denial cannot overcome his positive identification by the prosecution witness.[35]
	GR NO. 173243 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO CASELA TINGA, J.
After weighing the clashing versions of the prosecution and the defense, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the prosecution's version is more credible.[38] However, was the offense committed murder or only homicide?
	GR Nos. 148145-46 2004-07-05	PEOPLE v. FELIX VENTURA Y QUINDOY PER CURIAM
As regards the civil liability of the appellants, the award of the trial court is hereby modified as follows:In Criminal Case No. 00-20692, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Aileen as civil indemnity for her death is sustained, the commission of the crime by appellants having been duly proven.[101] The award of moral damages to her heirs is likewise proper considering that the prosecution presented adequate proof that they suffered mental anguish and wounded feelings.[102] However, the amount of moral damages awarded by the trial court is hereby reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[103] It should be borne in mind that the purpose for such award is to compensate the heirs of the victim for the injuries to their feelings and not to enrich them.[104]
	GR No. 156786 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The two penalties being both indivisible, and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance in this case, the lesser of the two penalties, which is reclusion perpetua, should be imposed pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.[19]