This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-06-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner is entitled to moral damages but not in the amount of P500,000 awarded by the RTC, which the Court finds to be excessive. While trial courts are given discretion to determine the amount of moral damages, it "should not be palpably and scandalously excessive."[48] Moral damages are not meant to enrich a person at the expense of the other but are awarded only to allow the former to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the other person's culpable action.[49] It must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong committed.[50] The award of P100,000 as moral damages is sufficient and reasonable under the circumstances. | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It appears that the affirmative answer of AAA actually referred to the question that her father slept. It should be noted that prior to said question of the defense counsel as to whether BBB slept, the defense counsel had already asked AAA several questions. It has been held that a witness may contradict himself on the circumstances of an act or different acts due to a long series of questions on cross-examination during which the mind becomes tired to such a degree that the witness does not understand what he is testifying about, especially if the questions, in their majority are leading and tend to make him ratify a former contrary declaration.[29] Moreover, the alleged inconsistency pertains to a matter extraneous to the crime of rape and does not detract from the fact that AAA had indeed been sexually defiled.[30] Thus, it is immaterial where BBB came from when he arrived in his house at about 3:00 o'clock in the morning of [14 January 2000].[31] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2007-02-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, we find the award of P500,000.00 in moral damages and P500,000.00 in exemplary damages to be excessive. Moral damages and exemplary damages are not intended to enrich the complainant in order to punish the defendant.[31] Moral damages are for reparation of the spiritual status quo ante; a means to assuage the moral suffering of the complainant brought about by the culpable action of the defendant. The award of moral damages must then be commensurate to the suffering or proportionate to the wrong committed.[32] An award of P100,000.00 approximates the anxiety suffered by Victoria. | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In this case, the RTC noted that: [William]'s denial and that of his witnesses of the imputation of physical violence committed by him could not be given much credence by the Court. Since the office secretary Ofelia Rosal and the family laundrywoman Rosalino Morco are dependent upon defendant for their livelihood, their testimonies may be tainted with bias and they could not be considered as impartial and credible witnesses. So with Kingston Ong who lives with defendant and depends upon him for support.[36] Parenthetically, William claims that that the witnesses of Lucita are not credible because of their relationship with her. We do not agree. Relationship alone is not reason enough to discredit and label a witness's testimony as biased and unworthy of credence[37] and a witness' relationship to one of the parties does not automatically affect the veracity of his or her testimony.[38] Considering the detailed and straightforward testimonies given by Linda Lim and Dr. Vicente Elinzano, bolstered by the credence accorded them by the trial court, the Court finds that their testimonies are not tainted with bias. | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioner admits that the issues on appeal are factual. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, for the simple reason that the Court is not a trier of facts. The findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive on this Court, absent proof of any of the recognized exceptional circumstances[5] such as: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) the findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[6] | |||||
|
2005-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Through the ages, we have persistently stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts.[14] The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on us especially when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court.[15] This rule, however, is not absolute, as it admits of certain exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and, (h) where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioners are not disputed by the respondents, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[16] | |||||