This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2000-06-20 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| By the evidence before us we sustain the holding of the trial court that the statement of Emerson Umandam may be validly considered as a dying declaration. Although it may not be ascertained from the written statement itself[19] whether Umandam was speaking with a consciousness of impending death, we have held in a number of cases[20] that even if a declarant did not make a statement that he was on the brink of death, the degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death supervened shortly afterwards may be considered as substantial evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full realization that he was in a dying condition. The contents of Umandam's statement convey to us that he was experiencing extreme pain; he sustained multiple injuries in vital organs of the body[21] and underwent emergency surgery, and he died the day after he executed the statement. | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the absence of any convincing proof that accused-appellants consciously and deliberately adopted the means by which they committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, the Court must resolve the doubt in favor of the accused-appellants.[52] | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The award of P50,000.00 as death indemnity is likewise affirmed. No proof was adduced as to actual and moral damages sustained by the heirs of the victim. Hence, for lack of legal basis, none can be awarded.[34] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Being in the best and unmatched position to discern the behavior of the witnesses and to sift the truth from the incredible tales, this Court respects the observation of the trial court that none of the prosecution eye witnesses, SPO2 Bautista, Flynn Rivera, Filipina Luha and Nelia Nambio appeared to be ill-motivated so as to implicate the accused-appellants to the crime.[11] On the other hand, the trial court described the defense version as having "all the earmarks of falsehood," "incredible" and "weak and implausible."[12] We thus advert to that all-too familiar rule that findings of fact of the trial court, especially its assessment on the credibility of witnesses, are not to be disturbed on appeal. The trial court is in a better position than the appellant court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence because of their unique opportunity to directly observe the witness' demeanor, conduct, deportment and manner of testifying.[13] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We also have to modify the amount of P200,000.00 which the trial court awarded "by way of indemnity and as actual and moral damages." Actual damages cannot be awarded in the absence of receipts to support the same, in line with the rule that actual damages cannot be allowed unless supported by evidence in the record.[25] The Court can only give credence to actual expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely expended in connection with the victim's death.[26] Moral damages cannot be given, too, since there is no legal basis therefor,[27] either testimonial or documentary. Only P50,000.00 by way of death indemnity can be awarded without need of evidence proving the same under the circumstances. | |||||