This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In People v. Pondivida,[34] the Court held:Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not per se to that of being an eyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime. There are two types of positive identification. A witness may identify a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime. This constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although a witness may not have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance when the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is the second, type of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence, which, when taken together with other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others. x x x.[35] (Emphasis omitted and underscoring ours) | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that "the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This dictum would be more true if the findings were affirmed by the CA, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, these findings are generally binding upon this Court."[20] "The justification for this is that [the] trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses by virtue of its firsthand observation of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses under grilling examination."[21] While jurisprudence admits of exceptions to this principle, no such exception attends the present case. | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests. Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices.[20] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Other than exemplary damages, the award of other damages is in order. In conformity with the prevailing jurisprudence[28], the amount of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.00. In addition, an interest of 6% is imposed on the damages awarded in this case as a natural and probable consequence of the acts of the accused complained of.[29] | |||||