This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-03-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The contention of the appellant has no merit. The fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the judge who heard the testimonies of the witnesses was not enough reason to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses. Though ideally a judge should hear all the testimonies personally, at times the reality is that a different judge might pen the decision because the predecessor judge has retired, died or has been reassigned. In this situation, it cannot be assumed that the findings of fact of the judge who took over the case are not reliable and do not deserve the respect of the appellate courts. The judge who did not hear the testimonies personally can always rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial.[21] Such dependence does not violate substantive and procedural due process.[22] Indeed, the correctness of a decision is not impaired by the fact alone that the writer only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at trial, unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of factual findings reached by him.[23] The only reason for disregarding the findings of fact of the trial court (which are ordinarily given great respect by the appellate courts) is when there is a manifest indication that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have altered the conviction of the accused.[24] In this case, no such reason exists for us to set aside the trial court's findings of fact. | |||||
|
2002-03-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, the trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased. Civil indemnity ex delicto can be awarded without need of further proof other than the commission of the felony itself.[16] With respect to the award of actual damages, the rule in this jurisdiction is that the same cannot be based on the allegation of a witness without any tangible document to support such a claim.[17] Anent the award of actual damages, the same was the subject of stipulation between the parties.[18] Hence, the award of P21,125.00 as actual damages is affirmed.[19] In addition, moral damages should be awarded to the heirs of the deceased. The conviction of accused-appellant for the crime charged is sufficient to justify the award thereof.[20] Consistent with jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages shall be P50,000.00.[21] | |||||
|
2002-03-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The civil liability of accused-appellant should be modified. In addition to the award of P40,200.00 for funeral and burial expenses, which were duly substantiated by receipts,[17] plus P50,000.00 death indemnity, accused-appellant is further ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,[18] as well as damages for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased. | |||||