This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, on the award of damages. The award of P50,000 as civil indemnity for the death of each victim, is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[67] The amount of P50,000 as moral damages for the death of each victim should also be awarded without need of further proof.[68] | |||||
|
2003-05-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| For alevosia to be considered to have attended the killing, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that: (1) the employment of means of execution gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[15] This, the prosecution failed to do. | |||||
|
2003-02-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The cardinal rule is that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, reviewing courts generally will not disturb the findings of the trial court, unless it can be shown that the latter overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best done by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh firsthand the testimony of a witness in the light of his demeanor, conduct and attitude, and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between the true and false.[20] | |||||
|
2003-02-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Likewise futile is accused-appellant's defense of alibi. Alibi is looked upon by courts with caution, for not only is it inherently unreliable, it is also rather easy to fabricate. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that an accused prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the situs criminis when the crime was committed.[28] | |||||