This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Third, immediately after the incident, accused-appellant fled to Batangas and hid there for one and a half (1½) months.[64] Flight strongly indicates a guilty mind and betrays the existence of a guilty conscience.[65] Indeed, flight is an implied admission of guilt and accused-appellant's act of fleeing to Batangas after shooting the victims cannot but betray his guilt and his desire to evade responsibility therefor.[66] Certainly, a righteous individual will not cower in fear and unabashedly admit the killing at the earliest possible opportunity if he were morally justified in doing so. If the accused-appellant honestly believed that his acts constituted self-defense against the unlawful aggression of the victim, he should have reported the incident to the police instead of escaping and avoiding the authorities.[67] | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the award of damages, we find the trial court's award of P24,295.50 to be excessive. Of this amount, only the hospitalization and funeral expenses in the respective amounts of P2,500.00 (Exh. B)[47] and P2,800.00,[48] or a total of P5,300.00, were covered by receipts. Thus, only these amounts, which appear to have been actually incurred in connection with the death of the victim, represent the actual damages to be awarded in favor of his heirs.[49] Accused-appellant should likewise be ordered to pay P7,000.00 as attorney's fees[50] since the victim's sister testified that such amount was paid by her family for the prosecution of this case and the same is duly evidenced by a receipt issued by counsel.[51] The award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the wrongful death of the victim must be upheld as it is in accord with current case law.[52] In addition, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages should be given to the heirs of the victim as fixed by our recent rulings. The purpose of making such an award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[53] | |||||
|
2001-09-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant makes much of the fact that it was only on June 13, 1995 that Carmelita Nacario executed an affidavit identifying accused-appellant as the person who killed her husband on May 19, 1995. As found by the trial court, however, the delay was satisfactorily explained by the fact that Carmelita was in shock after witnessing the gruesome killing of her husband.[23] It has been held that delay in filing a criminal complaint does not impair the credibility of a witness if is satisfactorily explained.[24] Well-entrenched is the rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great respect in the absence of any indication that it has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight or substance, which if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[25] In this case, the trial court found the testimony of eyewitness Carmelita Nacario to be straightforward and persuasive insofar as identifying accused-appellant as the person who killed her husband.[26] | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Finally, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight as it is in the best position to evaluate the same because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor, conduct, and attitude on the witness stand.[18] Unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted by the trial court, its findings are binding and conclusive on this Court.[19] Finding no reason to make an exception in this case, we uphold the testimonies of Modesta and Rodora Agua. | |||||