This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have no reason to doubt Ducusin's credibility as a witness. Ducusin is appellant's own brother-in-law, but he is also a Barangay Captain. Despite his relationship with appellant, his sense of justice proved unerring. He bared his suspicion to the police that the vehicle left in his care was a hot item. Appellant tried to ascribe ill-motive on Ducusin for testifying against him, but appellant failed in this regard. Absent a showing that the witness was actuated by an improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[74] This rule has a more compelling application when the witness testifies against a relative, for no person would implicate in a crime his own kin, disregarding the unspeakable social stigma it may cause against his entire family, unless that person seeks only the truth, for justice to prevail. | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In sum, we find no reason nor justification to reverse the findings and conclusions of the trial court. In affirming convictions, the evidence required remains, as always, one beyond reasonable doubt, though we do not ask for proof that excludes all possibility of error.[79] Only moral, not absolute, certainty is what the fundamental law requires. In this case, considering the circumstances of the case, we entertain no doubt on appellant's guilt. | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| court did not present any computation to justify such an amount. In fact, other than the bare allegations of the victim's widow to this effect, the records are totally bereft of any receipt or voucher to justify the trial court's award for burial and other expenses. The rule is that every pecuniary loss must be established by credible evidence before it may be awarded.[53] Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts or other credible evidence.[54] Thus, the amount of actual damages should accordingly be reduced to P66,000.00, which is borne out by the evidence.[55] In the same vein, loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded to the victim's heirs in the absence of competent proof thereof. While the widow in this case testified on the victim's income,[56] the same can no longer serve as basis for lost earnings, in | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| respectively, the records, however, are bereft of proof that the two unidentified muggers were also armed. For one, prosecution eyewitness Solomon testified that he did not see whether or not the two other hold-up men were armed.[44] Next, while prosecution witness Elidio stated in his affidavit that all four of the hold-up men were armed when they announced a hold-up (apat na holdaper na armado ng patalim at baril, at sila ay nagsabi ng "Holdap"),[45] he, however, admitted during his testimony in court that he could not identify the two other malefactors nor did he see whether or not they were armed.[46] His testimony on the witness stand should be held more weighty than his affidavit, for ex parte affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to declarations made in open court.[47] Thus, we find that for lack of sufficient proof the aggravating circumstance of "in band" must be ruled out. It follows that there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attending the commission of the offense, the proper penalty to be imposed should be reclusion perpetua.[48] Accordingly, the grant of damages needs to be modified. The sum of P50,000 is properly awarded as civil indemnity for the wrongful death of PO1 Llave without need of proof other than the fact of death of the victim.[49] In addition, another sum of | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| = 2 (32) x P30,000 3 = 64 x P30,000 3 = P640,000 The trial court properly awarded P50,000 as civil indemnity for wrongful death as this may be awarded without need of proof other than the death of the victim.[34] Likewise, we affirm the award of moral damages of P50,000 in line with current jurisprudence.[35] | |||||
|
2001-11-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, the award of P200,000.00 as burial and other expenses incurred in connection with the death of the victim must be deleted. The records are bereft of any receipt or voucher to justify the trial court's award of burial and other expenses incurred in connection with the victim's death. The rule is that every pecuniary loss must be established by credible evidence before it may be awarded.[54] Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts or other credible evidence.[55] | |||||