This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2004-03-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The recommendations of the OSG are well taken. As a rule, claims for actual damages must be supported by evidence.[39] In this case, no receipts were offered to support the funeral expenses claimed by the victim's family. Hence, the award of P19,000.00 in actual damages must be stricken for lack of proof. However, considering that the victim's heirs did incur funeral and other expenses because of his death, the award of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 would be justified.[40] Lastly, concerning the award of civil indemnity, the amount thereof should be reduced to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing case law.[41] | |||||
|
2003-10-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Case law has it that the trial court's findings of facts, its calibration of the collective testimonies of witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties, as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings, are accorded great weight, and even conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court to observe, at close range, the conduct, demeanor and the deportment of the witnesses as they testify.[55] Upon careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds no cogent reason to overrule the trial court's finding that the appellant stabbed the victim in cold blood. | |||||
|
2003-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the Court puts emphasis on the court a quo's observation that the two witnesses testified in a clear and straightforward manner. [26] Case law has it that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testified, unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case. [27] After carefully reviewing the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to overrule the court a quo's ruling on the credibility of the two eyewitnesses. | |||||
|
2003-09-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Case law dictates that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[17] We see no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court. | |||||