This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-10-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Under Article 2206[44] of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings, but for loss of capacity to earn money.[45] The indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[46] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[47] Thus, as a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[48] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the alleged inconsistent statements of PO3 Villano and PO2 Amador with respect to appellant's exact location during the search and seizure, the number of rooms inside the house, and the place where the shabu and rolled marijuana leaves were found, suffice it to say that these matters are not vital and of such significance as compared to the circumstances and the very act of finding the dangerous drugs in the possession of the appellant which constitute the elements of the crime. Criminal law jurisprudence invariably holds that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details do not impair their credibility. As the Court ruled in People v. Bernabe,[20] "[w]hile witnesses may differ in their recollections of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from their disagreement that all of them should be disbelieved as liars and their testimonies completely discarded as worthless. As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slightly clashing statements neither dilute the witnesses' credibility or the veracity of their testimony, for indeed, such inconsistencies are but natural and even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed." | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The perceived inconsistency on whether Gepayo knows Ampuan even before the incident is inconsequential as to discredit the credibility of Gepayo's testimony. The inconsistency pointed out by appellants pertains only to collateral or trivial matters and has no substantial effect on the nature of the offense. In fact, it even signifies that the witness was neither coached nor was lying on the witness stand. What matters is that there is no inconsistency in Gepayo's complete and vivid narration as far as the principal occurrence and the positive identification of Ampuan as one of the principal assailants are concerned.[23] "The Court has held that although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant."[24] | |||||