This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Anent the award of actual damages, the victim's widow testified that the family spent a total of P66,904.00 relative to the wake and burial of the victim. However, the claim for said amount is supported merely by a list of expenses[43] personally prepared by the widow instead of official receipts. To be entitled to an award of actual damages, "it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable x x x."[44] "A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions."[45] Thus the Court deletes the lower courts' award of actual damages. Nonetheless, since entitlement of the same is shown under the facts of the case, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00[46] should be awarded in lieu of actual damages to the heirs of the victim pursuant to Article 2224 of the Civil Code which provides that temperate damages "may be recovered when the court finds that pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty." | |||||
|
2010-09-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants cannot avoid liability by way of their defenses. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[21] To establish alibi, an accused must prove (1) that he was present at another place at the time the crime was perpetrated; and (2) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[22] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Both the trial court and the appellate court found AAA's testimony credible. The RTC considered it "straightforward and consistent on material points," while the Court of Appeals described it as "spontaneous, forthright, clear and free-from-serious contradictions." Well-entrenched is the legal precept that when the "culpability or innocence of an accused hinges on the issue of the credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court, when duly supported by sufficient and convincing evidence, must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by this Court and are not to be disturbed on appeal."[31] We see no reason in this case to depart from the principle. Moreover, we give due deference to the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility, having had the opportunity to witnesses firsthand and note her demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination.[32] | |||||