Lawyerly

GR No. 186417

2011-07-27

PEREZ, J.

We emphasize that a trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility, when affirmed by the CA, is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight or influence. [38] This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under gruelling examination. [39] Thus, in Estioca v. People, [40] we held: In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower courts, unless there is a showing that it overlooked or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanour when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness. [41]

GR No. 182094

2010-08-18

PEOPLE v. EFREN ALFONSO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Finally, the courts below correctly disposed of appellant's contention that "EEE" was the real culprit. Both "AAA" and "BBB" were consistent in pointing out that it was appellant who committed the sexual acts against them. Despite the suggestion from appellant's counsel, both remained steadfast that their father was the one who raped them. Lending credence to the fact that appellant was indeed guilty of the crimes attributed against him were his own actuations at the time material to this case. By appellant's own admission, he did nothing upon learning that his own daughters "AAA" and "BBB" were sexually molested allegedly by "EEE." Instead, he just went to sleep upon learning of the abuses committed against his own daughters. When his wife, "CCC," insisted on bringing "AAA" and "BBB" to the hospital to undergo medical examination, appellant got angry. He sold their personal effects and even destroyed their house. He also made himself scarce. Even after hearing over the radio that he was the one accused of raping his two daughters, he did not come forward to clear his name. Instead, he went on hiding until his capture two years later. "[T]he flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind."[47]

GR No. 179717

2010-02-05

PEOPLE v. NIEVA ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is well-settled that the trial court's determination on the issue of credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of facts must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts or substance have been overlooked, which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[14]

GR No. 177944

2008-12-24

JUDITH P. ORTEGA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The reason behind this policy is that it is a fundamental and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which is the situation in the case at bar. Judicial experience has revealed that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. It can thus more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[14] Therefore, it is but proper that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to 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 the appellate courts. Thus, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight; which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.

GR No. 183087

2008-12-04

PEOPLE v. IGNACIO ISANG Y LAGAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It should be borne in mind that the evidence presented by the prosecution is entirely unrebutted, as the defense failed to present any evidence on account of Isang's escape from detention. That Isang escaped from detention during the pendency of the case before the trial court is in itself an indication of his guilt. The flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt or of his guilty mind.[10] Flight evidences guilt and a guilty conscience: the wicked flee, even when no man pursues, but the righteous stand fast as bold as a lion.[11]

GR No. 179036

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. CARLITO MATEO Y PATAWID

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The evaluation of testimony is a primary task of trial courts before whom conflicting versions of the same events come up day after day. We emphasize that the trial court's determination on the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. It can thus more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[36]

GR No. 178546

2008-04-30

PEOPLE v. MUKIM ELING Y MAÑALAC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A qualifying circumstance like treachery changes the nature of the crime and increases the imposable penalties for the offense.[44] Hence, like the delict itself, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[45] Treachery can be appreciated when the following requisites are present: (1) the employment of means, method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means, method, or manner of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.[46] Appellant was shown to have shot the deceased Tuttoh from behind, hitting him in the nape, and with the bullet exiting the victim's right cheek. During the commission of the crime, the deceased Tuttoh was sitting on a bench or a platform outside the nipa hut. He was conversing with Sakandal. He was unaware of any attack that appellant had planned against him. What existed here was such a sudden and unexpected attack by the appellant and without warning on an unsuspecting victim, depriving Tuttoh of any real chance to defend himself, and thereby ensuring, without risk, its commission.

GR NO. 164220

2007-04-27

GERARDO AOANAN v. JOSE AOANAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We must agree in the conclusion of the trial court that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim by mere preponderance of evidence. We see no cause to depart from the familiar maxim according great weight and respect to the factual findings of the trial court, it being in the best position to weigh conflicting declarations of witnesses, observing their demeanor and conduct while giving evidence.[6] The trial court's determination on the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[7] A close examination of the records, specially the testimonies of all the witnesses presented before the trial court, would lead us to sustain the ruling of the court a quo that the petitioner failed to prove his allegation that the money used by the defendant in purchasing the subject property from the PNB came from the proceeds of the sale of another property belonging to Jose Aoanan, Sr., and that petitioner failed to adduce evidence that he had made an actual contribution in purchasing the subject properties from the PNB that would entitle him to a share in the proceeds of the sale thereof to the NAPOCOR.

GR No. 139879

2003-05-08

PEOPLE v. GABRIEL ANNIBONG Y INGGAO

QUISUMBING, J.

In his Brief, appellant offers no substantial reason, however, why we should overturn the trial court's appreciation of the evidence presented against him. Instead, he merely reiterates in this appeal his claim of self-defense. In cases where the accused admits committing the crime but invokes self-defense, the basic rule that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution is reversed, and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove the elements of his defense.[16] In our view, the defense has not discharged its burden successfully.

GR No. 138646

2001-03-06

PEOPLE v. JOMER CABANSAY Y PALERMO

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

The accused admits the killing of the victim but denies any liability by invoking self-defense. Self-defense, as a justifying circumstance, shifts the prosecutorial burden of proving the guilt of the accused to the accused who must prove the elements of such defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[27] It is incumbent upon the accused to rely on the strength of his own evidence which must be clear, sufficient and convincing, and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.[28]

	GR No. 186417 2011-07-27	PEOPLE v. FELIPE MIRANDILLA PEREZ, J.
We emphasize that a trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility, when affirmed by the CA, is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight or influence. [38] This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under gruelling examination. [39] Thus, in Estioca v. People, [40] we held: In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower courts, unless there is a showing that it overlooked or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanour when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness. [41]
	GR No. 182094 2010-08-18	PEOPLE v. EFREN ALFONSO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Finally, the courts below correctly disposed of appellant's contention that "EEE" was the real culprit. Both "AAA" and "BBB" were consistent in pointing out that it was appellant who committed the sexual acts against them. Despite the suggestion from appellant's counsel, both remained steadfast that their father was the one who raped them. Lending credence to the fact that appellant was indeed guilty of the crimes attributed against him were his own actuations at the time material to this case. By appellant's own admission, he did nothing upon learning that his own daughters "AAA" and "BBB" were sexually molested allegedly by "EEE." Instead, he just went to sleep upon learning of the abuses committed against his own daughters. When his wife, "CCC," insisted on bringing "AAA" and "BBB" to the hospital to undergo medical examination, appellant got angry. He sold their personal effects and even destroyed their house. He also made himself scarce. Even after hearing over the radio that he was the one accused of raping his two daughters, he did not come forward to clear his name. Instead, he went on hiding until his capture two years later. "[T]he flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind."[47]
	GR No. 179717 2010-02-05	PEOPLE v. NIEVA ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is well-settled that the trial court's determination on the issue of credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of facts must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts or substance have been overlooked, which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[14]
	GR No. 177944 2008-12-24	JUDITH P. ORTEGA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The reason behind this policy is that it is a fundamental and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which is the situation in the case at bar. Judicial experience has revealed that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. It can thus more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[14] Therefore, it is but proper that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to 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 the appellate courts. Thus, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight; which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.
	GR No. 183087 2008-12-04	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO ISANG Y LAGAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It should be borne in mind that the evidence presented by the prosecution is entirely unrebutted, as the defense failed to present any evidence on account of Isang's escape from detention. That Isang escaped from detention during the pendency of the case before the trial court is in itself an indication of his guilt. The flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt or of his guilty mind.[10] Flight evidences guilt and a guilty conscience: the wicked flee, even when no man pursues, but the righteous stand fast as bold as a lion.[11]
	GR No. 179036 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. CARLITO MATEO Y PATAWID CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The evaluation of testimony is a primary task of trial courts before whom conflicting versions of the same events come up day after day. We emphasize that the trial court's determination on the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. It can thus more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[36]
	GR No. 178546 2008-04-30	PEOPLE v. MUKIM ELING Y MAÑALAC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A qualifying circumstance like treachery changes the nature of the crime and increases the imposable penalties for the offense.[44] Hence, like the delict itself, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[45] Treachery can be appreciated when the following requisites are present: (1) the employment of means, method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means, method, or manner of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.[46] Appellant was shown to have shot the deceased Tuttoh from behind, hitting him in the nape, and with the bullet exiting the victim's right cheek. During the commission of the crime, the deceased Tuttoh was sitting on a bench or a platform outside the nipa hut. He was conversing with Sakandal. He was unaware of any attack that appellant had planned against him. What existed here was such a sudden and unexpected attack by the appellant and without warning on an unsuspecting victim, depriving Tuttoh of any real chance to defend himself, and thereby ensuring, without risk, its commission.
	GR NO. 164220 2007-04-27	GERARDO AOANAN v. JOSE AOANAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We must agree in the conclusion of the trial court that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim by mere preponderance of evidence. We see no cause to depart from the familiar maxim according great weight and respect to the factual findings of the trial court, it being in the best position to weigh conflicting declarations of witnesses, observing their demeanor and conduct while giving evidence.[6] The trial court's determination on the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[7] A close examination of the records, specially the testimonies of all the witnesses presented before the trial court, would lead us to sustain the ruling of the court a quo that the petitioner failed to prove his allegation that the money used by the defendant in purchasing the subject property from the PNB came from the proceeds of the sale of another property belonging to Jose Aoanan, Sr., and that petitioner failed to adduce evidence that he had made an actual contribution in purchasing the subject properties from the PNB that would entitle him to a share in the proceeds of the sale thereof to the NAPOCOR.
	GR No. 139879 2003-05-08	PEOPLE v. GABRIEL ANNIBONG Y INGGAO QUISUMBING, J.
In his Brief, appellant offers no substantial reason, however, why we should overturn the trial court's appreciation of the evidence presented against him. Instead, he merely reiterates in this appeal his claim of self-defense. In cases where the accused admits committing the crime but invokes self-defense, the basic rule that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution is reversed, and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove the elements of his defense.[16] In our view, the defense has not discharged its burden successfully.
	GR No. 138646 2001-03-06	PEOPLE v. JOMER CABANSAY Y PALERMO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The accused admits the killing of the victim but denies any liability by invoking self-defense. Self-defense, as a justifying circumstance, shifts the prosecutorial burden of proving the guilt of the accused to the accused who must prove the elements of such defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[27] It is incumbent upon the accused to rely on the strength of his own evidence which must be clear, sufficient and convincing, and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.[28]

PEOPLE v. RENATO VALLADOR