This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that the assessment of a trial court in matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great respect if not finality on appeal.[31] The rationale behind this rule is the recognition of the trial court's unique and distinctive position to be able to observe, first hand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue.[32] | |||||
|
2011-01-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Here, both the trial court and the CA found that all the five complainants were promised to be sent abroad by Susan and herein appellant[43] as cooks and assistant cooks. The follow up transactions between appellant and her victims were done inside the said travel agency. Moreover, all four receipts issued to the victims bear the name and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy,[44] with two of the said receipts personally signed by appellant herself.[45] Indubitably, appellant and her co-accused acting together made complainants believe that they were transacting with a legitimate recruitment agency and that Laogo Travel Consultancy had the authority to recruit them and send them abroad for work when in truth and in fact it had none as certified by the POEA.[46] Absent any showing that the trial court and the CA overlooked or misappreciated certain significant facts and circumstances, which if properly considered, would change the result, we are bound by said findings.[47] | |||||
|
2004-08-12 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Both the trial and the appellate courts found the foregoing testimony to be trustworthy and credible. Despite the fact that private respondent appeared to have lied about her age,[18] we find no compelling reason to disbelieve her story about petitioner's misrepresentation. The maxim "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus"[19] is not absolute. Neither is it of universal application. Just because petitioner lied about a minor point in her testimony does not mean that such testimony can be disregarded entirely, if a part of it is found to be true. The testimony of a witness may be believed in some parts and disbelieved in other parts.[20] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| The remaining issue for us to resolve, although not raised as an assignment of error, is whether treachery attended the killing of Jesus Sidayon. The requisites for appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance to murder are: (1) the means of execution were such that the victim was given no opportunity to defend himself, and (2) such means were deliberately or consciously adopted.[29] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning,[30] ensuring the offender's safety from the defensive or retaliatory attack of the victim.[31] | |||||
|
2000-03-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| "... exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. Such acts must point to a joint purpose, concert of action or community of interest. Hence, the victim need not be actually hit by each of the conspirators for the act of one of them is deemed the act of all."[69] | |||||
|
2000-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We affirm the award of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as indemnity ex delicto. The solicitor general's recommendation to increase this amount to seventy five thousand (P75,000.00) pesos, based on People vs. Victor,[32] is not well-taken. As we held in the recent case of People vs. Costelo,[33] People vs. Victor increased the award of indemnity in rape cases that are effectively qualified by any of the circumstances which calls for the death penalty. Clearly, it is inapplicable in the present case, which is a prosecution for murder. However, we eliminate the award of thirty thousand (P30,000.00) pesos as actual damages in the absence of competent proof thereof. | |||||