This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Indisputably, there is no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and the CA as they have fully considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, and they have adequately explained the legal and evidentiary reasons in concluding that Cheng is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Estafa by misappropriation defined and penalized under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC. It is settled that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record,[25] as in this case. | |||||
|
2015-12-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Several modifications, however, need to be effected on the other damages. The award of civil indemnity should be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[34] Considering that no aggravating circumstance was found to attend the subject killings, the award of moral damages is also decreased to P50,000.00.[35] The amount of temperate damages is likewise reduced from P30,000.00 to P25,000.00.[36] Further to these, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded, to be computed from the date of finality of judgment until full payment.[37] | |||||
|
2015-09-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Among the requisites of self-defense, the most important that needs to be proved by the accused, for it to prosper, is the element of unlawful aggression. It must be proven first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[16] When the Court speaks of unlawful aggression, it is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense in actual or imminent danger. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to his life. It must be continuous, otherwise, it does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense.[17] | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the Court's review of the present case is via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which generally bars any question pertaining to the factual issues raised. The well-settled rule is that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review under Rule 45, subject only to certain exceptions, among them, the lack of sufficient support in evidence of the trial court's judgment or the appellate court's misapprehension of the adduced facts.[59] None of these exceptions was, however, convincingly shown to attend in this case. | |||||