Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DAGPIN Y PAUSAL

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 186379 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO LAZARO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant Bienvenido guilty of the charge. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[38] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[39] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[40] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[41]
	GR No. 185389 2009-07-07	PEOPLE v. BENJIE RESURRECCION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding accused-appellant Benjie guilty of the charge. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[29] Such is not the case here.
	GR No. 184598 2009-06-23	PEOPLE v. JULIO MANALILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Courts finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[47] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to t he sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain whether they are telling the truth or not.[48] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[49] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed byt the appellant court.[50]
	GR No. 185380 2009-06-18	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO MARCOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect, unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[26] We find no reason not to apply the rule and to apply the exception.
	GR No. 172470 2008-04-08	PEOPLE v. SAMMY RAMOS Y DALERE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[56] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[57] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[58] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[59]
	GR NO. 170849 2007-03-07	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MORAN JR. Y GORDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[16] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[17] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[18] In the case under consideration, this Court finds that the trial court as well as the Court of Appeals committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charge.
	GR No. 143716 2002-04-05	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO OBQUIA MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, except for this belated claim of accused-appellant that he and Marietta had been sweethearts, there is nothing to substantiate the sweetheart theory of the defense. There are no letters or notes, photographs, mementos, or gifts, such as one would expect lovers to exchange, to prove the alleged love relationship.[27]
	GR Nos. 139959-60 2001-11-22	PEOPLE v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS Y ARSITE MENDOZA, J.
First, we have held that no standard form of behavior may be expected when a person is confronted by a shocking or a harrowing and unexpected incident, for the workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[20] Second, in rape cases, the force required need not be overpowering or irresistible when employed. What is necessary is that the force be sufficient to accomplish the purpose which the accused had in mind.[21] The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself because of fear.[22] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective.[23] The victim categorically described the force and intimidation exerted when she was ravished. She tried to resist by kicking accused-appellant. But he was no match for her. She wanted to scream but her mouth was covered and he pinned her down on the bed.[24]