This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[10] | |||||
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence.[50] Matters of credibility are addressed basically to the trial judge who is in a better position than the appellate court to appreciate the weight and evidentiary value of the testimonies of witnesses who have personally appeared before him.[51] The appellate courts are far detached from the details and drama during trial and have to rely solely on the records of the case in its review. On the matter of credence and credibility of witnesses, therefore, the Court acknowledges said limitations and recognizes the advantage of the trial court whose findings must be given due deference.[52] Since the CA and the private respondents failed to show any palpable error, arbitrariness, or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the trial court, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding.[53] | |||||
|
2014-05-05 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| [T]reachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[152] | |||||
|
2014-01-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, we must modify the amounts of moral and exemplary damages already awarded in order to conform to existing jurisprudence. Therefore, the exemplary damages awarded should be increased from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00.[27] Moreover, there being no aggravating circumstance present in this case, the award of moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 should be decreased to P50,000.00.[28] Lastly, the interest rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this ruling until fully paid.[29] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| With regard to appellant's inquiry into the credibility of the lone eyewitness of the prosecution, we depend upon the principle that the trial court is in a better position to adjudge the credibility of a witness. In People v. Vergara,[12] we elaborated on this premise in this wise: When it comes to the matter of credibility of a witness, settled are the guiding rules some of which are that (1) the [a]ppellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower [c]ourt, unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, which showing is absent herein; (2) the findings of the [t]rial [c]ourt pertaining to the credibility of a witness is entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand, and, therefore, can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not; and (3) a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[13] | |||||