This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The RTC ordered Victor to acknowledge "AAA's" offspring "CCC" and give her support. "Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code provides for three different kinds of civil liability that may be imposed on the offender: a) indemnification, b) acknowledgement of the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing, and c) in every case to support the offspring. With the passage of the Family Code, the classification of acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction was eliminated and they now fall under the specie of illegitimate children. Since parental authority is vested by Article 176 of the Family Code upon the mother and considering that an offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua automatically loses the power to exercise parental authority over his children, no 'further positive act is required of the parent as the law itself provides for the child's status'. Hence, [Victor] should only be ordered to indemnify and support the victim's child."[70] "The amount [and terms] of support shall be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing in accordance with Article 201[71] of the Family Code."[72] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The issue of credibility of the witnesses has, time and again, been settled by this Court as a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying. The reviewing court is generally bound by the trial court's findings and conclusions, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances were shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[25] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[26] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The issue of credibility has, time and again, been settled by this Court as a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances were shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[40] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[41] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Sexual crimes where the culprit denies culpability is actually a test of credibility. The issue of credibility has, time and again, been settled by this Court as a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[34] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[35] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The trial court found the testimony of private complainant to be both credible and convincing. It is settled that the determination of the competence and the credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[15] because it has the unique position of observing the witness's deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the assessments and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[16] Moreover, in the case at bar, the victim's testimony is corroborated by the medical findings. | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In his second assigned error, appellant questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. We have time and again, held that the issue of credibility is a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts; and absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances were shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[11] In the present case, the trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be more credible than those of the defense witnesses. | |||||
|
2002-12-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| civil indemnity awarded to a rape victim in cases where the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed is presently fixed at P50,000.00 and moral damages likewise at P50,000.00.[24] Moral damages are automatically awarded to a rape victim without need of proof, for it is assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[25] Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity, which is likewise automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime and the offender's responsibility therefor.[26] With respect to the civil liability of a person who commits rape, Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "ART. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. Persons guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction, shall also be sentenced: | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| rape sometime in September 1997. There was no showing that Rachelle has previously been sexually abused or she had sexual relations with other men during that time. Thus, with respect to the acknowledgment and support of the child born out of rape our recent ruling in People v. Justiniano Glabo[39] states: Concerning the acknowledgment and support of the offspring of rape, Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code provides for three kinds of civil liability that may be imposed on the offender: a) indemnification, b) acknowledgment of the offspring, unless the law should prevent him | |||||