This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2010-03-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Besides, it is not required for conspiracy to exist that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. Direct proof of such agreement is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[16] | |||||
|
2004-11-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value.[12] Like the defense of alibi, a denial crumbles in the light of positive declarations.[13] | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Conspiracy between appellants Factao and Labrado was adequately established. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[67] It is not necessary, however, that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused which show a joint or common purpose and design, a concerted action and a community of interest among the accused.[68] | |||||
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant and the Solicitor General are one in contending that the trial court awarded excessive actual damages without adequate legal basis. Thus, the amount of P150,000.00 was awarded for funeral and burial expenses without any supporting evidence on record.[116] This cannot be sustained in this review. In order for actual damages to be recovered, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof, such as receipts or other documents to support the claim.[117] The records clearly show in this case that only the amount of P7,000 as funeral expenses was duly supported by a receipt.[118] Hence, the award of actual damages should be limited to P7,000 only. | |||||
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A: None, sir.[26] In the absence of any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witness to impute so grave a wrong against the appellant, the defense of denial hardly deserves probative value.[27] Like alibi, a denial is inherently weak. It crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who positively testify that the accused was at the scene of the incident and was the victim's assailant.[28] Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, is a negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[29] | |||||
|
2003-06-09 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| As has so often been stated by this Court, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which gets a good chance, unlike that of an appellate court, to observe the demeanor of the declarant at the witness stand, and that, in the absence of any fact or circumstance of substance that has apparently been overlooked, its findings on the reliability of the testimony given before it are not thus disturbed on appeal.[4] The records in this case yield no evident trace that any such significant fact or circumstance has been missed out. Soledad has testified thusly:nona | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| It is true that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence.[19] It can be shown by the conduct of accused-appellants, before, during and after the commission of the crime. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[20] Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused, evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action or community of interest.[21] Conspiracy is not present in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, we have to modify the P54,000.00 award for actual and compensatory damages. Out of that amount, only P15,233.24 appears receipted - P14,000.00 as evidenced by a receipt issued by St. Matthew Memorial Services[19] and the remaining P1,233.24 was for the Meralco bill for the month of May, 1992.[20] Actual damages cannot be awarded in the absence of receipts to support the same, in line with the rule that actual damages cannot be allowed unless supported by evidence in the record.[21] The Court can only give credence to actual expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely expended in connection with the victim's death.[22] | |||||