This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against appellants. Absence of improper motive makes the testimony worthy of full faith and credence.[26] In this case, appellants, who were positively identified, testified that Asonda and Anggot had no ill motive to testify against them.[27] Moreover, ill motive has no bearing when accused were positively identified by credible eyewitnesses. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[28] | |||||
|
2004-08-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| But the award for loss of earning capacity should be modified. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,[32] it should be computed as follows: X = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses) Where: Life Expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - [age of deceased]); Gross Annual Income = monthly earnings x 12 months; and Living Expenses = 50% of gross annual income | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| telling the truth or merely narrating a concocted tale. He could weigh conflicting testimonies because he heard the witnesses themselves, observed their deportment and manner of testifying, and had full access to the vital aids of determining truth or falsehood, such as the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien. Unless the trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts, the substance and value of which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, his assessment on credibility must be respected.[8] Besides, accused-appellant could only offer a defense of denial and alibi. Denial is intrinsically a weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be supported by strong evidence of nonculpability. To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| convinced that the victim and accused-appellant, who were in-laws, were involved in a land controversy which provided sufficient motive for the killing. We have no reason to depart from such conclusion. More importantly, the issue of lack of motive on the part of accused-appellant is irrelevant because motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[16] As we stated earlier, the prosecution was able to establish accused-appellant's identity through the eyewitness account of Gerry Orbino. Accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi must fail, considering that accused-appellant was positively identified by an eyewitness who harbored no ill motive against her. Besides, accused-appellant was unable to show that it was impossible for her to have been at the | |||||