This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, we have held that the hearsay rule does not apply where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial.[19] In the case at bar, the testimony of PO3 Callora as regards the conversations between the informant and accused-appellant is admissible insofar as it established that said information led the police officers to prepare for and proceed with the buy-bust operation. The conversation between the informant and the accused-appellant was not necessary to prove the attempted sale of shabu, as said attempt to sell was already clear from accused-appellant's actuations on July 2, 2004, which were all within the personal knowledge of PO3 Callora and testified to by him, to wit: (1) when accused-appellant arrived at the scene, she waived at the informant and PO3 Callora and approached them while driving her Toyota Revo;[20] (2) upon reaching PO3 Callora and the informant, accused-appellant asked PO3 Callora where the money was, while the latter asked for the shabu;[21] (3) accused-appellant showed PO3 Callora a Chowking plastic bag containing a sachet of white crystalline substance;[22] (4) when PO3 Callora was about to give her the money, accused-appellant sensed that there were police officers around the area, and drove away;[23] (5) PO3 Callora and the informant boarded the car of PS/Insp. Garcia, and they chased her to C-5 Road corner Kalayaan Avenue.[24] | |||||
|
2010-03-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. In cases of murder and homicide, moral damages may be awarded without need of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, other than the death of the victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[27] To conform with recent jurisprudence, Jadap is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages.[28] | |||||
|
2009-12-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Another exception to the hearsay rule is the doctrine of independently relevant statements, where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.[16] | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As a matter of settled jurisprudence, the Court generally defers to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witness and their testimonies, for it is in a better position to decide questions of credibility having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their attitude and deportment during trial.[18] Accordingly, a finding on the credibility of witnesses, as here, with respect to the testimony of Anthony and Zenaida, deserves a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could reverse a judgment of conviction.[19] None of the exceptions exists in this case. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Further, under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, in this case, treachery. This is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[20] The imposition of exemplary damages is also justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code in order to set an example for the public good. The amount for the purpose is P25,000 following precedents.[21] | |||||