This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-02-20 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Jaymart's alibi deserves little weight in the face of Edwin's categorical and positive identification of Jaymart as the one who shot Emmanuel, especially as there is no showing that Edwin was harboring any ill motive to falsely testify against Jaymart. Indeed, alibi is an inherently weak defense, and it becomes weaker in the face of the positive identification made by the prosecution witness.[18] It is likewise well-settled that where there is nothing to indicate that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[19] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| On the defense's imputation of ill motive on the part of eyewitness Romulo Roquero, suffice it to say that the charge is basically unsubstantiated. There is no showing in the records that the matter was brought up in trial, despite the fact that the defense had the opportunity to confront Roquero in cross-examination, or by the presentation of a rebuttal witness. Absent evidence to indicate that the prosecution witness was moved by improper motive, the presumption is that no such ill motives exists, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[25] | |||||
|
2000-05-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Moral damages awarded by the trial court are proper. Moral damages are recoverable in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries, or the victim's death.[30] No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary; however, there must be satisfactory showing of factual basis for the moral injury.[31] Nelia Redito, mother of deceased Elito Pajanustan, has testified having suffered pain and sorrow from the loss of her son.[32] Thus, we find the award of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages to be reasonable and adequate. | |||||