Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EUFROCENIO LACESTE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188901 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR PEREZ, J.
We must reiterate that, ultimately, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[20]
	GR No. 177152 2010-01-06	PEOPLE v. MANUEL BAGOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant's contentions essentially assail the credibility of AAA's testimony. We must reiterate that, ultimately, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[17] Accused-appellant miserably failed to convince us that his case presents an exception to this established rule. The observation of the RTC on this point is worth quoting here: It can be deduced from the foregoing testimony of [AAA] that she was credible, straightforward, categorical and logical and that she was not motivated by ill will and malice in testifying against Manuel Bagos, notwithstanding the vigorous and extensive cross-examination by the defense. She wants justice in this case.[18] (Words in bracket ours.)
	GR No. 167755 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This Court agrees with the finding of the CA that the testimony of BBB was not incredible simply because she first sought the help of a barangay kagawad instead of immediately helping AAA. As repeatedly stressed, there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[44] Witnessing a crime is an unusual experience that elicits different reactions from the witnesses and for which no clear-cut standard form of behavior can be drawn.[45] The same observation can be applied to the reaction of Rivera who instead of immediately calling for help, opted to watch appellant and AAA for three minutes.
	GR No. 157106 2008-09-03	ROMULO TINDOY v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Basic is the rule that the trial court's factual findings, especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal. When the issue is one of credibility, the Court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case. The reason therefor is not hard to discern. The trial courts are in a better position to decide questions of credibility having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[11]