This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, discrepancies do not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, for affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer or due to partial suggestions, and are, thus, generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.[50] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Sara,[12] the Court held that a witness' testimony cannot be "considered as competent proof and cannot replace the probative value of official receipts to justify the award of actual damages, for jurisprudence instructs that the same must be duly substantiated by receipts."[13] Hence, there being no official receipts whatsoever to support petitioner's claim for actual or compensatory damages, said claim must be denied. | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Adoracion did not actually see how the shooting started or how the attack was commenced. However, she testified that she was only about five armslength away from her husband and nephew when she heard the first gunshot. No amount of warning could have prepared the victims against the impending danger that befell upon them. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. [38] When they were assaulted, the victims were peacefully crossing the Jal-O river without any inkling that they were about to be attacked. Appellants and their companions purposively established themselves in strategic positions from which vantage point they fired upon the victims, taking them by surprise. The fact that the victims' backs were turned towards their assailants at the time they were fired upon only proves the treacherousness of the attack. The victims were not even given the chance to face their attackers as they were felled by successive bursts of gunshots. Moreover, at the time of the shooting, the victims were then crossing the river and the water was about thigh deep.[39] This circumstance must have considerably decreased the victims' mobility giving them less opportunity to seek cover and at the same time ensured the safety of appellants and their cohorts from any retaliatory act that the victims might have made. Except for their bags and the hoe Dominador was carrying, the victims were unarmed and had nothing to defend themselves with against the firearms used by their assailants. Even granting that Dominador and Mamerto saw their attackers immediately before they were fired upon, such circumstance would not render the attack less treacherous as it was executed with such swift, vicious and stealthy manner as to render any defense like the use of the hoe virtually impossible. | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In this case, Helen Buoy testified that at the time of the incident, her husband was working as a farmer, tilling their one-hectare land.[105] However, she did not specify how much her husband earned on the average or how much he earned every market day or what and how much he harvested every year. Since indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven by competent proof, the Court is unable to order the payment of loss of earning capacity in this case for want of sufficient evidence to support the award thereof.[106] | |||||