This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-12-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to the purported conflict between our decision in this case and that in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, the more acceptable practice has always been to interpret and reconcile apparently conflicting jurisprudence, instead of placing one jurisprudence over another in a destructive confrontation; not to uphold one and annul the other, but instead to give effect to both by harmonizing the two.[5] Hence, the pronouncement made in the aforementioned case as to the application of the formula in DAR AO No. 5, Series of 1998, must be put in its proper context and understood in light of the following ratiocination preceding the same,[6] to wit:With regard to the third assigned error, however, we agree with petitioner that the SAC erred in setting aside petitioner's valuation of respondent's land on the sole basis of the higher valuation given for neighboring properties. In this regard, the SAC held: | |||||
|
2007-07-03 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Testimonies of victims of tender age are credible, more so if they are without any motive to falsely testify against their offender.[19] Their revelations that they were raped, coupled with their willingness to undergo public trial where they could be compelled to describe the details of the assault on their dignity by their own father, cannot be easily dismissed as concoctions.[20] It would be the height of moral and psychological depravity if they were to fabricate sordid tales of sexual defloration (which could put him behind bars for the rest of his life) if they were not true.[21] | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING DWELLING AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. As a rule, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is generally accorded the highest degree of weight and respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying.[11] | |||||