This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-02-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Understandably, appellant assails the reliability of the identification made by the prosecution for, after all, it is the only way by which his alibi could carry some weight. It is well-settled that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[8] In this case, both Genalyn and Gino have been able to identify appellant by the lightning flashes that illuminated their otherwise dark house and through his voice. It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated.[9] Even the split-second illumination by a flash of lightning could suffice to confirm identification of appellant. Identification of an accused by his voice has also been accepted particularly in cases where, such as in this case, the witnesses have known the malefactor personally for so long[10] and so intimately.[11] In People v. Calixtro,[12] the Court has given credence to the blindfolded rape victim's identification of the accused, a barriomate, by his voice. Still in an earlier case, the Court has said:"x x x [C]omplainant's identification of the appellant was not based solely on the latter's physical defect, but by his voice as well, when he warned complainant, `Flor, keep quiet.' Although complainant did not see appellant's face during the sexual act because the house was dark, nevertheless, no error could have been committed by the complainant in identifying the voice of the accused, inasmuch as complainant and appellant were neighbors."[13] The young victim, narrating her ordeal, declared before the trial court: | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the items of damages awarded by the trial court, we find the award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victim to be in accord with recent rulings of this Court.[34] However, we find the amount of P30,000.00 awarded as nominal damages to be excessive and should therefore be reduced. The amount of P15,000.00 would be appropriate considering that the heirs of the victim actually incurred hospital and funeral expenses as a result of the victim's death, although the exact amount thereof has not been adequately shown.[35] The amount of moral damages awarded should likewise be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with the current case law.[36] | |||||
|
2001-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Based on the foregoing considerations, accused-appellant is guilty of murder and should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in line with the prevailing doctrine. Civil indemnity is intended as indemnity for the death of the victim and need not be proven.[42] The award of P6,000.00 as actual damages is likewise proper considering that such amount covers funeral expenses which were duly supported by receipts. However, in accordance with our rulings,[43] accused-appellant should be ordered to pay the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. | |||||