Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GONZALES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 146034 2003-04-09	PEOPLE v. LASTIDE A. SUBE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The facts from which the aforementioned circumstances arose have been proved through positive testimony. In order that these circumstances may support a conviction, they must form an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair conclusion, i.e., the culpability of the accused-appellants for the killing of the victim.[59] We are convinced that the aforementioned circumstances, taken together, leave no doubt that the accused-appellants killed Nicanor Solis.
	GR No. 111860 2001-06-29	PEOPLE v. JESUS CLEDORO PARDO, J.
The well-entrenched rule is that the assessment of the trial court on credibility of witnesses is entitled to respect. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths.[20]
	GR No. 110813 2001-06-28	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PARDUA PARDO, J.
However, civil indemnity is automatically awarded to the heirs of the victim without need of further proof other than the death of the victim.[24] Thus, we award the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Toribio Simpliciano, in line with current jurisprudence.[25]
	GR No. 130627 and Nos. 139477-78 2001-05-31	PEOPLE v. AGUEDA T. ALBA PARDO, J.
Alibi and denial, which are the defenses interposed by accused-appellants, are the weakest of all defenses[31] and must fail given the straightforward, candid and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.[32] Besides, the rule is that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect. The court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[33] In fact, the trial court noted the deportment of the prosecution witnesses and hailed their manner of testifying as "straightforward...devoid of any embellishment or exaggerations."[34] Anent the trial court's decision, "The reliability and veracity of their (prosecution witnesses') testimonies cannot be suspect."[35]
	GR No. 134402 2001-02-05	PEOPLE v. NARCISO BAYANG Y LEYPOS PARDO, J.
True, there were no eyewitnesses to the actual robbery with homicide. The only witness who could have testified as to the details of the gruesome crime is Edilberto. Death has silenced his lips forever. However, circumstantial evidence is available and sufficient to convict. We cannot allow felons to go free even without direct testimony.[28]
	GR No. 128819 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. EDDISON CASTURIA Y DIACOSTA PARDO, J.
We thus reiterate the rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths.[13]
	GR No. 109143 2000-10-11	PEOPLE v. PEDRO G. TALIMAN PARDO, J.
While no one saw the actual killing of Renato, circumstantial evidence proved its commission. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential, when to insist on direct testimony would set felons free.[45]