This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is jurisprudential that factual findings of trial courts especially those which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.[9] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[10] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is jurisprudential that factual findings of trial courts especially those which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.[10] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[11] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We have said before that the workings of a human mind are unpredictable; people react differently and there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident.[19] AAA could not be expected to remember all the details surrounding her harrowing experience with appellant. The emotional trauma she suffered may tend to make her forget a circumstantial matter such as the house where she was raped. On the same note, AAA's father cannot be expected to immediately demand justice for his daughter. His initial shock could have prevented him from doing anything at all. Be that as it may, the inaction of AAA's father on the day he knew his daughter was raped does not negate the crime of appellant. | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is jurisprudential that factual findings of trial courts especially those which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.[16] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[17] | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the legal precept that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses, its assessment of the credibility of the said witnesses and its evidence based on the said findings are given high respect if not conclusive effect by the appellate court, unless the trial court overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance which if considered will alter the outcome of the case.[30] The trial court lent credence to the positive identification made by dela Cruz, to wit:x x x Lanie, in fact, has positively identified the three (3) accused on trial not only by their faces but also by their aliases pointing to Rey Plata as "Jeffrey," Feliciano Fajardo, Jr. as "Gerry" and Darius as "Darius." Thus, the identification made by her as to who actually seized Oliver and took him by car to Tarlac, Tarlac, and the men she rode with in a van from Sta. Maria, Bulacan to Tarlac, Tarlac up to Baguio City and finally to Bonita Resort in Pangasinan is credible and trustworthy. True, Lanie incurred some inconsistencies in the process, but this, to this Court, are brought about by lapses in memory due to the time interval between the abduction and her testimony in court which in no way detracts from the credibility of the witness. Lanie finds corroboration from the victim himself, Oliver Caparas. As established, Lanie took care of Oliver during all the time, from September 11 to September 17, 1996, that the latter was held and kept at the Bonita Resort in Pangasinan. Lanie, while Oliver was under care, appeared to have made no effort to hide her identity much less disguised herself. For Oliver, therefore, to recognize, and identify Lanie, as he did in court, has to be conceded.[31] Sustaining the testimony of dela Cruz, the appellate court held: | |||||
|
2006-12-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The award of interest on damages is proper and allowed under Article 2211 of the Civil Code, which states that in crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court.[68] | |||||