This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-10-30 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| On May 12, 1976, petitioners moved for execution of the CAR February 8, 1972 Decision for the second time. However, the action on the second motion for execution was again deferred by the CAR pursuant to General Order No. 53 dated August 21, 1975, the pertinent portion of which states as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, do hereby declare a moratorium on the ejectment of bona fide tenants or lessees in agricultural and residential lands converted or proposed to be converted into subdivisions or commercial centers and establishments. To obviate the proliferation of social problems and to allow a humane settlement of the problem, all orders for the ejectment of tenants or the demolition of their homes are hereby suspended until further orders. [5] x x x On June 18, 1980, petitioners Colosos registered a third motion for execution, asserting, among others, that as early as August 8, 1974, the DAR had already acted favorably on the petition for conversion, which was subsequently affirmed in a DAR November 23, 1979 letter. On August 4, 1980, the CAR issued an order deferring action on the motion "until after more definitive rules and regulations shall have been issued by the authorities regarding ejectment of tenants in agricultural and residential lands."[6] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Private complainants' recantation of their testimony against the accused on the ground that they took pity on him and were merely forced to testify against the latter by the DSWD officer cannot be taken to work for his acquittal. This court has held that mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate his original testimony.[48] A retraction is generally unreliable and is looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts.[49] Like any other testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand. [50] As properly held by the trial court, private complainants' recantation appears to be a mere afterthought, conveniently made out of pity for the accused, and as an act of gratitude to the relatives who took them in. The trial court held that: "The court have carefully examined the not so lengthy testimonies of the complainants, during the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, and have come to the conclusion that the facts narrated therein by Elizabeth and Eloisa are but the product of their thirst for justice. Noteworthy, it is that when subjected to searching and unrelenting cross-examination by the same defense counsel, the recanting witnesses stood firm and steadfast in their assertions and answered the questions with straightforward clarity. | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| (Affiant)[27] The affidavit in question must be looked upon with disfavor. The mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate his original testimony. As held in People v. Amban:[28] | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, the victim, Cristina Gonzales a.k.a. Cristina Corsanis, should be awarded moral damages of P50,000.00, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[12] | |||||