This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, usually a case becomes a contest of credibility between the accused and the police, the witnesses and their testimonies. Generally this Court relies upon the assessment by the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying.[25] The factual findings by the trial court are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[26] We find no justifiable reason to deviate from this rule in the case before us.[27] | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| At the time of his death, Suico, forty-four (44) years old,[96] was receiving a monthly take-home pay of P942.70,[97] as proven and admitted. To compute his net earnings, we multiply this amount by 12 to get his annual income; then deduct the reasonable and necessary living expenses which, in the absence of contrary evidence, is pegged at 50 percent of the earnings. Applying the formula "Net earning capacity = [2/3 x (80 age at time of death) x (gross annual income reasonable and necessary living expenses)],[98] we arrive at a loss of earning capacity of P135,748.80. | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court's award of damages likewise needs to be modified. The heirs of Nicanor Solis are entitled to civil or death indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as a matter of law.[73] The heirs of Nicanor Solis should also be awarded moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for the mental anguish, wounded feelings and moral shock they suffered as a result of Nicanor's death.[74] However, the award of actual damages must be deleted for failure of the prosecution to present receipts to substantiate the same.[75] Instead, the heirs of the victim should be awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, considering that they incurred hospital and funeral expenses as a result of the victim's death.[76] | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court found that the identity of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime was clearly and positively established not only by Salvador Galvez, Jr., who knew accused-appellant for many years, but also by prosecution eyewitness Rodney Albito, who was not known to have any misunderstanding or grudge against him. There is no evidence showing that he was prompted with ill-motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant. Significantly, the time of commission of the crime was at 8:00 in the morning, and the distance between the witnesses and the accused-appellant was so near with nothing to obstruct their view.[12] Where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased, his assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should be accepted as trustworthy.[13] | |||||
|
2003-01-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the award of damages, however, modifications are in order. First, with respect to the death of Bartolo Atuan, Jr., we find that the trial court awarded exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. With the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity in the commission of the crime, as found the court below, as well as considering the near-fatal injuries inflicted on the lady victim, the award of exemplary damages is called for. But based on current jurisprudence, it should only be P10,000.00.[31] The award of P200,000.00 as moral damages should also be reduced to P50,000.00, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[32] The victim's heirs are entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 without proof other than the fact of the victim's death. But the award of P20,000.00 in actual and compensatory damages must be deleted because no evidence to support the award was presented. | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying.[18] Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect -- even finality -- absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[19] We find no reason to deviate from this rule in the case before us.[20] The principal witnesses clearly established the elements of the crime: an illegal sale of the dangerous drug actually took place, and appellants were the authors thereof. The testimony of PO3 Albert Colaler, the poseur-buyer, was clear and straightforward. It was amply | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "fn">[20] Thus, it relies heavily on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly when there are conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the trial court, which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying.[21] Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[22] We find no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court in the case before us.[23] The positive identification made by the police officers and the laboratory report, not to mention the incredulous defense of frame-up to which appellant resorts, | |||||
|
2002-09-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| view, however, this fact would not significantly influence much less alter the outcome of the present case. The circumstances obtaining in the instant case are different from the cases of People vs. Pinca,[37] People vs. Cawaling,[38] and People vs. Daraman.[39] In Pinca, there was a "scanty discussion in the assailed Decision"[40] on the credibility of the witnesses and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. As the decision was virtually bare of the judge's findings and analysis, the Court could not rely upon said findings. Hence, we "thoroughly perused the transcripts of the witnesses' testimonies and examined the other pieces of evidence on record."[41] In Cawaling and Daraman, this Court meticulously scrutinized the records of the cases to find if the conclusions of the judge, who penned the decision but did not have the opportunity to observe the witnesses and the manner in which they testified, were amply supported by the records. In both Cawaling and Daraman, we found no reason to differ from the conclusions of the trial judges who penned the decisions. The efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that the ponente only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided over the trial.[42] For it does not follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision.[43] In the present case, Judge Abdullah relied upon the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial as the basis for his decision. The full record was available to him. As the decision shows, he thoroughly examined and analyzed the evidence before him and carefully calibrated the credibility of the witnesses with the seasoned perspective he had developed as a trial judge. In this review, we have minutely scrutinized the assailed decision of the appellate court. We find it amply supported by the evidence on record. Despite petitioner's insistence, there is no showing that the Court of Appeals, without considering the fact that there were two | |||||