This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Therefor, such testimonies prevail over the affidavits previously executed by the witnesses. It is settled that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in court, the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate.[42] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| identified by Gale during the trial as those who were with the group when the plan to kidnap the victim was hatched. Such testimony prevails over the affidavits which Gale previously executed. It is settled that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in court, the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate.[65] Moreover, delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where the delay is explained.[66] Gale was able to satisfactorily explain why he did not name or identify | |||||
|
2003-01-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court was correct in awarding to the private complainants the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each act of rape.[36] In addition, and consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be awarded as moral damages for each count of rape.[37] | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| latest jurisprudence for rape not effectively qualified by any circumstance under which death penalty is authorized by the present amended law.[18] Moral damages is also awarded pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the necessity of additional pleading or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the abhorrent crime of rape, especially where the rape victim is an innocent child whose life is forever tainted by a foul and traumatic experience.[19] In addition, accused-appellant is ordered to pay each of his victims P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, considering his relationship as father of the rape victims, Elgie and Lady.[20] | |||||
|
2002-08-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| affidavits, substantially differed from those in their testimonies. It is true that minor variations between the affidavit and the testimony of the complainant are normally not enough to cast doubt upon her credibility and truthfulness.[17] After all, errorless statements and testimonies cannot be expected, especially | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Thus, notwithstanding proof of such knowledge, appellant could only be held liable for the crime of simple rape. As to appellant's civil liability, we find in order the award of P50,000 as indemnity[50] and of another P50,000 as moral damages.[51] However, the award of P50,000 as exemplary damages should be reduced to only P25,000, pursuant to | |||||
|
2002-08-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| witness on the stand. Unless there are substantial matters that might have been overlooked or discarded, the findings of credibility by the trial court will not generally be disturbed on appeal.[11] In the case at bar, a careful and thorough review of the records reveals that the trial court was correct in convicting accused-appellant on the basis of the testimony of Franco Cuyos, who was not shown to have been impelled by ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant.[12] Not only was his testimony convincing and unequivocal, the same was also backed up by physical evidence, a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth[13] that the victim was indeed shot on the chest and at close range. Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi were correctly disregarded by the trial court. Time and again, we have said that denial and alibi are the weakest defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification.[14] For alibi to prosper as a | |||||