This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-07-06 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To begin with, it is fundamental that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.[23] Such determination made by the trial court proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination,[24] thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[25] | |||||
|
2010-06-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Concededly, there is no direct evidence proving that the appellant conspired and participated in committing the crime. However, his complicity may be proved by circumstantial evidence, which consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.[7] Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[8] A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.[9] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.[17] It is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[18] | |||||
|
2009-09-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The conclusion of the MTC, supra - that the Dadizons' supposed acquisition on March 10, 1976 by means of a private document of the 78-square meter portion from Eustaquia Bernadas, Felicidad Dadizon's own mother, had been feigned "to make it appear that the documents were executed on the dates mentioned therein"; and that Dominador Mocorro had been "misled into fencing their residential land as to its correct boundary upon misrepresentation of one Eustaquia Bernadas" in the absence of Elsa Mocorro - was upheld by the RTC as the appellate court for the reason that the Dadizons had not presented any fact or circumstance that the MTC as the trial court had failed to appreciate, but if considered would change the result. The conclusion binds the Court now, for the trial court was in the best position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[21] Absent the showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case, the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of witnesses or other evidence made by the trial court remain binding on the appellate tribunal.[22] The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight, as well as its conclusions based on its findings, are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect.[23] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.[20] Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following requisites concur:(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Verily, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[21] Thus, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the culprit. | |||||
|
2004-07-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 00-20692, the trial court did not grant Jaime's claim for P20,000.00 in actual damages for hospitalization expenses since he failed to present any receipts to substantiate the same. Nonetheless, in light of the fact that Jaime was actually hospitalized and operated upon, this Court deems it prudent to award P20,000.00 as temperate damages.[108] Moreover, Jaime is also entitled to moral damages in accordance with Article 2219, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, which this Court hereby awards in the amount of P25,000.00.[109] Finally, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 are also in order considering that the crime was attended by two aggravating circumstances.[110] | |||||