This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-08-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners Antonio Navarro and Clarita Navarro were married on December 7, 1968.[4] During their union, they acquired three parcels of land in Alabang, Muntinlupa City on which they built their home. These pieces of land were covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 155256, 155257 and 155258 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati City. The TCT's, however, are registered in the name of "Antonio N. Navarro... married to Belen B. Navarro." [5] Sometime in 1998, respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) had caused the judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage which Antonio had earlier constituted on the subject properties as security for a loan he allegedly obtained from MBTC. In December of that year, the properties were sold at public auction where MBTC, as the lone bidder, [6] was issued a certificate of sale.[7] | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Medina[21] and People v. Oliano[22] the existence of a grudge or an ill motive does not automatically render the testimony of a witness to be false and unreliable. Petitioner's allegation of false motive in charging him with a crime cannot overcome the affirmative and categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses pointing to him as the malefactor. | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Courts reject alibi when there are credible eyewitnesses to the crime who can positively identify the accused.[82] Alibi is an inherently weak defense and courts must receive it with caution because one can easily fabricate an alibi.[83] Jurisprudence holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that accused were at the scene of the crime and were the victim's assailants. As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former must prevail.[84] Alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused by the witnesses.[85] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's rantings on the supposed ill motive which Rogelio had against him deserve scant consideration. The existence of a grudge does not automatically render the testimony of a witness false and unreliable.[25] Further, it should be noted that the conflict between petitioner and Rogelio was already settled before their Barangay Council.[26] Motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit.[27] In the instant case, the imputation of ill motive is already inconsequential as Rogelio personally witnessed the hacking of Teodoro by petitioner. | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On another point, we agree with the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the present case, and, treachery cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it was already taken as a qualifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. As regards the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, we rule that the sum of P35,470.00 as actual damages should be reduced to P25,670.00 since the receipts on record amounts only to P25,670.00.[45] It is well-settled that only expenses supported by receipts will be allowed for actual damages.[46] Furthermore, exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of Michael since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established by the prosecution.[47] If a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[48] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured person or punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[49] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. Ochinang testified that he had tried to stop Taan and Marquez from tying Ladaga's hands,[53] but could not because Taan was holding a gun and he had taken shabu.[54] Ochinang also implored Taan and Marquez four (4) times not to kill Ladaga to no avail.[55] The reason Ochinang failed to immediately report the incident to the authorities was his fear of Taan, who had warned him not to disclose the incident, and his several bodyguards.[56] Pertinently, we have ruled in People v. Hernandez,[57] that: Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness' delay in reporting the crime to the authorities. Such failure in making a prompt report to the proper authorities does not destroy the truth per se of the complaint. Likewise, the natural hesitance of the witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a criminal case, and their unwillingness to be involved or dragged into a criminal investigation is common, and has been judicially declared not to affect their credibility.[58] The supposed grudge Ochinang had against Taan which provoked the filing of the criminal case is flimsy to be believed. Even assuming that the allegation were true, the existence of a grudge does not automatically render Ochinang's testimony bereft of credibility.[59] | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| "The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death." Generally, witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their own perception. A recognized exception, though, is a report in open court of a dying person's declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case.[37] | |||||
|
2005-07-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is an established doctrine of long standing that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[29] The trial court is in a unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh or the scant or full realization of an oath all of which are useful for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[30] Thus, the clear and straightforward testimonies of Mendoza and Salvosa, who are disinterested witnesses, deserve credence. | |||||