This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As to the award of damages, the Court, deems it proper to increase the same in consonance with our ruling in People v. Gambao,[38] where the amounts of indemnity and damages were increased when the proper penalty for the crime committed by the accused was death but was not imposed because of the enactment of R.A. No. 9346, setting the minimum thereof, as follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,00.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.[39] Accordingly, in this case, the awards of civil indemnity should be increased from P50,000.00 to P100,000.00; moral damages from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00; and exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00. | |||||
|
2015-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It has been established that the trial courts are best situated to address the issue of the witnesses' credibility as they are in the unique position of being able to observe the demeanor of witnesses, something which appellate courts are deprived of. Absent any showing of substantial reasons, the Court is generally bound by the trial court's findings particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[10] In People v. Tabayan,[11] the Court expounded on the weight given on the assessment of trial courts of the testimony of witnesses, to wit:Settled is the rule that 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 evaluate testimonial evidence properly. | |||||