Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GENARO LARDIZABAL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 207988 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO PEREZ, J.
The Court finds no valid reason to depart from the time-honored doctrine that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.[17]
	GR No. 200645 2014-08-20	PEOPLE v. WENDEL OCDOL Y MENDOVA PEREZ, J.
Here, the trial court found complainant's narration of the alleged rape to be clear, convincing and straightforward. Accordingly, we see no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant forced AAA to engage in sexual intercourse with him. This position is consistent with the time-honored doctrine that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.[24]
	GR No. 204911 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN PEREZ, J.
Worthy to note that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.[21] It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police officers to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of accused-appellants. Additionally, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses vis-à-vis that of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[22]
	GR No. 201725 2014-07-18	PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA PEREZ, J.
We find no valid reason to depart from the time-honored doctrine that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.[18]
	GR No. 194833 2014-07-02	PEOPLE v. PORFERIO BALINO PEREZ, J.
This Court finds no valid reason to depart from the time-honored doctrine that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.[14]
	GR No. 186463 2012-11-14	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM MANGUNE Y DEL ROSARIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court finds no valid reason to depart from the time-honored doctrine that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.[36]