This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The pre-trial agreement issued by the RTC states that one of the matters stipulated upon and admitted by the prosecution and the defense was that the Certificate of Death issued by Dr. Cidric Dael (Dr. Dael) of the Bukidnon Provincial Hospital and reviewed by the Rural Health Physician of Malaybalay City "is admitted as proof of fact and cause of death due to multiple stab wound scapular area."[24] Stipulation of facts during pre-trial is allowed by Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 2 of Rule 118, meanwhile, prescribes that all agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.[25] In this case, while it appears that the pre-trial agreement was signed only by the prosecution and defense counsel, the same may nevertheless be admitted given that the defense failed to object to its admission.[26] Moreover, a death certificate issued by a municipal health officer in the regular performance of his duty is prima facie evidence of the cause of death of the victim.[27] Note that the certificate of death issued by Dr. Dael provides the following: CAUSES OF DEATH | |||||
|
2007-07-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is incredible that accused Nomer Ocampo and Elmer Mirand[a] have not done anything when their companion Danilo Cruz was in a fight with complainant. The least they could do was to pacify the two protagonists yet, they did not do this and they proceeded to go to their respective way home as if nothing has happened. If indeed the incident happened so fast and that the accused Danilo Cruz and complainant Rommel Misayah separated immediately after that "sudden strangling" of each other" [sic], the least that Ocampo and Miranda could do [sic] was to wait and ask Cruz what happened. Yet, again, they did not do this. x x x x[43] Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such that the common experience and observation of mankind can show it as probable under the circumstances.[44] And, the best test of the credibility of a testimony is its compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common experience of man.[45] Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[46] | |||||
|
2005-05-06 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The law does not require a definite degree of certainty when proving the amount of damages claimed. It is necessary, however, to establish evidence to substantiate the claim. To justify an award for actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.[12] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| To justify an award for actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims, which are duly supported by receipts.[19] The burden of proof is on the party who will be defeated if no evidence is presented on either side. He must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence which means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. In other words, damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award, must point out specific facts that can afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| from Cebu to Zamboanga.[93] However, there is nothing on record that will buttress Harisco's denial that she was present at the breakfast meeting as she had an early morning flight for Cebu. It must be pointed out that it devolves upon Harisco to prove the truth of her allegations, or denials, for that matter. Her plane ticket does not state the specific time of her flight from Bacolod to Cebu as said flight was booked with an open date.[94] Harisco's witness, May Luzuriaga, testified that the flight from Bacolod to Cebu was at 6:10 in the morning.[95] But further review of the evidence on record shows that the flight was in fact at 6:50 in the morning. Particularly, in the passenger manifest brought and presented by Bacolod Branch PAL Manager Job Lamela, it was specifically written that the time of Flight No. 371 on July 10, 1995 was at 0650H, or in layman's term, 6:50 in the morning,[96] thus debunking Harisco's claim. Absent proof therefore, Harisco's claim is reduced to an unsupported allegation that bears little persuasive effect, definitely insufficient to prevail over Gale's positive identification.[97] And even assuming that Harisco's flight was at 6:10 in the morning, it does not follow that it was physically impossible for her to negotiate the distance between her house and the airport. From 5:30 in the morning up to boarding time, Harisco had ample time to be at the | |||||
|
2001-10-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have long since held that in order for a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence, the following requisites must concur: (1) the declaration was made by the deceased under consciousness of his impending death; (2) the deceased was at the time competent as a witness; (3) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstance of the declarant's death; and (4) it is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry.[18] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| A dying declaration, made in extremis when the party is at the point of death and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, occasioned by a situation so solemn and awful, is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is created by a positive oath administered in a court of justice. The idea more succinctly expressed is that "truth sits on the lips of dying men."[7] As an exception to the hearsay rule, it is defined in Sec. 37, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court as one made by a dying person under the consciousness of an impending death with respect to the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. It may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry and requires the concurrence of the following: (a) the statement or declaration must concern the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) at the time it was made the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and, (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the decedent is the victim.[8] | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Taking Rowena's version in its totality, we find ourselves unable to concur with the credibility accorded to it by the trial court. For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.[15] The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind.[16] Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[17] | |||||