Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANDREW PACINA Y NEGAPATAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 186234 2009-12-21	PEOPLE v. FELIX PALGAN NACHURA, J.
The rule is settled that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and of their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of any clear showing that the court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case. This is because the trial court, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of credibility.[9]
	GR No. 137598 2003-11-28	PEOPLE v. JAYSON BERDIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As to moral damages, we award the victim's heirs the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.[61] For verily, moral damages are not intended to enrich the victim's heirs; rather they are awarded to allow them to obtain means for diversion that could serve to alleviate their moral and psychological sufferings.[62] Here, the victim's son unequivocally described how his family suffered wounded feelings for the death of his father.
	GR No. 130889 2002-06-06	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO LORENO QUISUMBING, J.
Another exception to the general rule is where substantial facts and circumstances have been overlooked which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion or alter the result of the case. [17] In this case, we find that based on the evidence on record, the trial court misapprehended certain facts and failed to consider significant portions of the testimony of the witnesses.
	GR No. 134004 2000-12-15	PEOPLE v. SPO3 ANTONIO MENDOZA PUNO, J.
In affirming the conviction of the accused, we note the observation of the trial court that in identifying the accused Mendoza, the witnesses' testimonies were "straightforward and unwavering."[29] Well-settled is the rule that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the discretion of the trial court which, unlike a review court, observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and thus was in a better position to assess their capacity for truth.[30] As we held in People v. Mitra:[31]