This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-04-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Affinity denotes "the relation that one spouse has to the blood relatives of the other spouse."[19] It is a relationship by marriage or a familial relation resulting from marriage. It is a fictive kinship, a fiction created by law in connection with the institution of marriage and family relations.[20] Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. Relatives by affinity, therefore, are those commonly referred to as "in-laws," or stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like.[21] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| What is more, the trial court even noted that the victim was crying while answering questions about the details of her rape.[36] We find it proper to reiterate that "when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime was committed."[37] | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[21] Hence, this appeal, on the lone assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN MISAPPRECIATING MATERIAL FACTS OF IMPORTANCE WHICH IF CONSIDERED AND GIVEN PROBATIVE VALUE, WOULD HAVE TILTED THE SCALES OF JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF AN ACQUITTAL.[22] While not unmindful of the constitutional presumption of innocence, and firmly aware that the accused's failure to take the witness stand is not to be taken against him, we consider that the prosecution has amply discharged its burden of proving the guilt of the accused. Not one scintilla of evidence was presented by the appellant to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. It is a well-settled rule that the trial court's assessment of witnesses' credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any showing of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[23] Appellate courts generally accord credence to the factual findings of the trial court, for the latter was in the best position to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.[24] | |||||
|
2004-05-25 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The quantity of the drugs seized from appellant, which is 994.773 grams of "shabu," warrants the application of the penalty under Section 16, in relation to Section 17, of Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise also known as "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes," of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. Applying the provisions of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty should be imposed, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances that can be considered, for the commission of the offense. [17] | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second, it must be stressed that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is generally entitled to great respect. The trial court had the first-hand opportunity to observe the complainant and other witnesses when they testified. It had the advantage of close proximity to personally scrutinize the witnesses, their conduct and demeanor, including their facial expression and body language. From all these indicators, the trial judge could fairly tell whether a witness is telling the truth or not. Absent any showing that the lower court acted arbitrarily or failed to consider certain facts of substance and value, which would otherwise affect the outcome of the case, its findings of fact should be given great respect or even be deemed conclusive and binding upon us.[15] Here, we agree that its factual findings and conclusions ought to be sustained. | |||||