This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-08-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court is not unmindful of the general rule that the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect and even finality on appeal.[9] However, this principle does not preclude a reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether material facts or circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court.[10] In the past, this Court has not hesitated to reverse judgments of conviction, where there were strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge was false.[11] | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Court, however, has to modify the award of civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of Rosalie Rayala. Recent rulings increased the amount of civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide to P100,000.00.[48] The heirs of Rosalie must be awarded the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof,[49] in view of the rape suffered by victim Rosalie. The fact that the heirs suffered the trauma of mental or physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the basis for moral damages under the Civil Code are too obvious to still require recital thereof at trial.[50] | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Court, however, has to modify the award of civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of Rosalie Rayala. Recent rulings increased the amount of civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide to P100,000.00.[48] The heirs of Rosalie must be awarded the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof,[49] in view of the rape suffered by victim Rosalie. The fact that the heirs suffered the trauma of mental or physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the basis for moral damages under the Civil Code are too obvious to still require recital thereof at trial.[50] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Just the same, it is well-entrenched in our jurisdiction that the conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally not disturbed by appellate courts. Having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying, trial courts are in a better position to decide the issue.[31] | |||||
|
2002-11-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| allegation of accused-appellant that he and private complainant were lovers; (b) no witness was presented to rebut the testimony of Crystalline Arcilla, who stated that she saw accused-appellant shouting in front of private complainant's house on the night of the incident; (c) neither was the prosecution able to debunk accused-appellant's claim that it was common knowledge in their community that he might be the father of one of private complainant's children.[14] Moreover, the initial reaction of private complainant's husband upon learning about the alleged rape is contrary to ordinary human experience. A man whose wife's chastity has just been violated is not expected to cast doubt on his wife's story and accuse her of having an affair with the assailant. Rather, the natural reaction of such a man is to feel outrage for the tragedy that befell his wife and extreme anger at his wife's rapist. Apparently, his reaction in this case was such because he had been harboring suspicion of an ongoing affair between his wife and accused-appellant, considering that the two have been the object of gossip and rumor in their place.[15] We are not unmindful of the general rule that the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect and even finality on appeal.[16] However, this principle does not preclude a reevaluation of the | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, it was in a better position to decide the question of credibility.[20] | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Besides, it is well-entrenched in our jurisdiction that the conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally not disturbed by appellate courts. Having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying, the trial courts are in a better position to decide the issue.[25] | |||||
|
2002-02-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, it was in a better position to decide the question of credibility.[15] | |||||