This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2004-06-08 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. This doctrine is based on the time-honored rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh the testimony in the light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct, and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses unless it is clearly shown that the trial court has overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[13] None of the exceptions was shown in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| We also uphold the trial court's rejection of the defenses of alibi and denial. For alibi to prosper, an accused must show that he was at some other place for such a period of time that it was impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime.[24] Virginia died between 3:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. of 15 December 1996. Jaime's claim that he was asleep beside his mother from 2:00 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. of that tragic day at the gate where the wake was held was belied by Kagawad Raymund Marquez. The latter testified that a few minutes after 12:00 a.m., after looking for his wife and threatening to kill her, Jaime left the wake and treaded back to his house, which was only about 200 meters away. Jaime's alibi was also negated by Soledad's testimony that she saw him brutally hitting his wife at around 3:00 a.m. of that fateful day. | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The crime committed by appellants Factao and Labroda is Murder, the killing being qualified by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[85] Treachery attended the killing of the victim Fernando Sardoma, where his assailant Factao first peeped into the bamboo wall, inserted the rifle through the bamboo wall and shot Fernando, who was then lying on his side in the relative security of his hut, utterly defenseless and completely unaware of the impending attack. | |||||
|
2003-11-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly held that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[53] Two essential elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[54] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| In view of the diametrically opposed versions of the prosecution and the defense, the resolution of the present case hinges on the credibility of the witnesses who had come forward to testify. We have long recognized that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies lies within the province and competence of the trial court because it has the direct opportunity to observe the witness' attitude, demeanor, deportment, and manner of testifying,[14] all of which aid in determining whether the witness is telling the truth or merely prevaricating. Thus, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great weight and respect and even finality by appellate courts[15] unless some fact or circumstance of weight and substance which could affect the result or disposition of the case was ignored, misapplied, misunderstood, or overlooked by the trial court or when the finding of fact was reached arbitrarily or capriciously.[16] We find no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and its factual findings as to what actually happened, the same being amply supported by evidence. | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| We find the award of indemnity for the death of DOMINADOR in the amount of P50,000 and P15,500 as funeral expenses, in order. The award of moral damages should, however, be increased from P20,000 to P50,000.[24] | |||||
|
2001-09-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| For alibi to prosper, the accused must: 1.] prove his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; 2.] demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[31] Accused-appellant failed to establish the second requisite. Since the distance between the house and the place of the incident was only about eighty (80) meters, it was not impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[32] In other words, accused-appellant's defense that he was at some other place at the time of the killing does not satisfactorily show that it was physically impossible for him to have perpetrated the felony.[33] | |||||