Lawyerly

GR No. 190348

2015-02-09

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Finally, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.[51]

GR No. 211002

2015-01-21

RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

Jurisprudence holds that "the findings 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 said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect."[73]

GR No. 194068

2014-07-09

PEOPLE v. BENJIE CONSORTE Y FRANCO

PEREZ, J.

Both the CA and the trial court have exhaustively discussed the merits of the case at bench and concur on their findings and conclusions. In this connection, it bears repeating that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[8] The rule is that, the findings 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 such findings are accorded respect, if not, conclusive effect. This specially holds true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the case at bar, said findings are generally binding upon us. We find no compelling reason in this case to depart from the general rule.[9]

GR No. 207513

2014-06-16

PEOPLE v. BRICCIO BACULANTA

REYES, J.

Settled is the doctrine that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, in which case, as in the case at bar, said findings are generally binding upon us.[21]

GR No. 206770

2014-04-02

PEOPLE v. NOEL PRAJES

REYES, J.

At the outset, the Court reiterates the settled rule that "the findings 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 said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, x x x, said findings are generally binding upon us[,]"[19] save in settled exceptions such as: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[20] Upon review, the Court has determined that the present case does not fall under any of these exceptions. We find no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings, and consequent rulings, of the trial and appellate courts.

GR No. 201732

2014-03-26

PEOPLE v. JESUS BURCE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As for the monetary awards, we affirm the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, each in the amount of P75,000.00; but increases the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. We further subject the indemnity and damages thus awarded to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[35]

GR No. 202976

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. MERVIN GAHI

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Thus, in view of the foregoing, we affirm the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals which was reclusion perpetua for each conviction of simple rape. The award of moral damages in the amount P50,000.00 is likewise upheld. However, the award of civil indemnity should be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with jurisprudence.[32] For the same reason, the award of exemplary damages should be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[33] Moreover, the amounts of damages thus awarded are subject further to interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.[34]

GR No. 199868

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. DALTON LAURIAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In view of the foregoing, we therefore affirm the conviction of appellant for simple rape with a penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity as well as P50,000.00 as moral damages is upheld. However, the award of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with jurisprudence.[30] Moreover, the amounts of damages thus awarded are subject further to interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.[31]

GR No. 199210

2013-10-23

PEOPLE v. RICARDO M. VIDAÑA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Furthermore, we have reiterated that, in incestuous rape cases, the father's abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[19] In other words, in an incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[20]

GR No. 197537

2013-07-24

PEOPLE v. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO

PEREZ, J.

The significance of raising the crime charged from simple rape to qualified rape relates to the award of damages. Since the crime of rape is perpetrated with a qualifying circumstance which required the imposition of the death penalty, the civil indemnity and moral damages for the victim shall be increased to P75,000.00 each.[28] Also, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is in order.[29]

	GR No. 190348 2015-02-09	PEOPLE v. NILO COLENTAVA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Finally, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.[51]
	GR No. 211002 2015-01-21	RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Jurisprudence holds that "the findings 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 said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect."[73]
	GR No. 194068 2014-07-09	PEOPLE v. BENJIE CONSORTE Y FRANCO PEREZ, J.
Both the CA and the trial court have exhaustively discussed the merits of the case at bench and concur on their findings and conclusions. In this connection, it bears repeating that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[8] The rule is that, the findings 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 such findings are accorded respect, if not, conclusive effect. This specially holds true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the case at bar, said findings are generally binding upon us. We find no compelling reason in this case to depart from the general rule.[9]
	GR No. 207513 2014-06-16	PEOPLE v. BRICCIO BACULANTA REYES, J.
Settled is the doctrine that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, in which case, as in the case at bar, said findings are generally binding upon us.[21]
	GR No. 206770 2014-04-02	PEOPLE v. NOEL PRAJES REYES, J.
At the outset, the Court reiterates the settled rule that "the findings 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 said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, x x x, said findings are generally binding upon us[,]"[19] save in settled exceptions such as: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[20] Upon review, the Court has determined that the present case does not fall under any of these exceptions. We find no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings, and consequent rulings, of the trial and appellate courts.
	GR No. 201732 2014-03-26	PEOPLE v. JESUS BURCE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As for the monetary awards, we affirm the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, each in the amount of P75,000.00; but increases the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. We further subject the indemnity and damages thus awarded to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[35]
	GR No. 202976 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. MERVIN GAHI LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, we affirm the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals which was reclusion perpetua for each conviction of simple rape. The award of moral damages in the amount P50,000.00 is likewise upheld. However, the award of civil indemnity should be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with jurisprudence.[32] For the same reason, the award of exemplary damages should be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[33] Moreover, the amounts of damages thus awarded are subject further to interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.[34]
	GR No. 199868 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. DALTON LAURIAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In view of the foregoing, we therefore affirm the conviction of appellant for simple rape with a penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity as well as P50,000.00 as moral damages is upheld. However, the award of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with jurisprudence.[30] Moreover, the amounts of damages thus awarded are subject further to interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.[31]
	GR No. 199210 2013-10-23	PEOPLE v. RICARDO M. VIDAÑA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Furthermore, we have reiterated that, in incestuous rape cases, the father's abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[19] In other words, in an incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[20]
	GR No. 197537 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO PEREZ, J.
The significance of raising the crime charged from simple rape to qualified rape relates to the award of damages. Since the crime of rape is perpetrated with a qualifying circumstance which required the imposition of the death penalty, the civil indemnity and moral damages for the victim shall be increased to P75,000.00 each.[28] Also, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is in order.[29]

PEOPLE v. EDMUNDO VITERO