This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Additionally, accused-appellant's defense of denial is unconvincing. "[D]enial is intrinsically a weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserves more credence and evidentiary weight."[40] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties.[12] When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he or she waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate.[13] An appeal confers upon the appellate court jurisdiction to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase (or reduce) the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.[14] The appellate court may, and generally does, look into the entire records to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[15] | |||||
|
2014-01-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held in jurisprudence that the resolution of such a factual question is best left to the sound judgment of the trial court and that, absent any misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed. In People v. De la Rosa,[11] we yet again expounded on this principle in this wise: [T]he issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of [the] witness, which is best addressed by the trial court, it being in a better position to decide such question, having heard the witness and observed his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. These are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. Verily, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case. x x x. | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As to the credibility of the testimonies of De Leon and Mendoza, the Court finds them straightforward and consistent with each other. Their combined declarations established beyond reasonable doubt Maglente's identity as one of the malefactors of the crimes charged. Consequently, Maglente's bare denial, without more, does not deserve consideration and cannot overthrow the positive identification made by De Leon. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserves more credence and evidentiary weight.[38] | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages."[17] Both the RTC and the CA properly awarded civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim but the same must be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[18] The heirs of the victim are likewise entitled to moral damages which the trial court and the CA properly awarded in the amount of P50,000.00. The award of exemplary damages in view of the aggravating circumstance of treachery is likewise correct however the same must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[19] "Moreover, while actual damages cannot be awarded since there was no evidence of actual expenses incurred for the death of the victim, in lieu thereof, the sum of P25,000.00 may be granted, as it is hereby granted, by way of temperate damages as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the [victim] suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved."[20] In addition, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.[21] | |||||