Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERNESTO M. FULLERO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 206379 2014-11-19	CECILIA PAGADUAN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION* MENDOZA, J.
Granting arguendo that Salvador had no criminal intent to injure a third person, the same is immaterial as such intent is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public document. It is jurisprudentially settled that in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officers or private persons, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. In falsification of public documents, therefore, the controlling consideration is the public character of a document; and the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial.[36]
	GR No. 173792 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. ROSARIO 'ROSE' OCHOA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We refer to the following ruling in Fullero v. People,[48] wherein we rejected a similar argument raised by petitioner therein against a certification issued by an officer of the Professional Regulation Commission: Regarding the third issue, petitioner contended that the prosecution's documentary evidence, consisting of Exhibits "A," "C," "F," "G," "H," "I," "J," "K," "L," "M," "N," "O," "P," "Q" and "R" and their sub-markings, are inadmissible in evidence based on the following reasons:
	GR Nos. 174730-37 2011-02-09	ROSALIO S. GALEOS v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.[26]
	GR No. 182792 2009-08-25	PEOPLE v. PEPITO NEVERIO VELASCO JR., J.
For the court to acquire jurisdiction over a criminal case, the offense or any of its essential elements should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.[23] This territorial jurisdiction of the court is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information.[24] In this case, the October 17, 2001 Informations clearly indicated that the acts of rape were committed in Barangay Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur. During trial, prosecution evidence showed that the molestations happened in AAA's house. And as testified by AAA's mother, their house was situated in Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur. Thus, AAA's inability to state her address in her testimony was trivial. Understandably, this failure was due only to her mental deficiency.
	GR No. 178301 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO 'BOTONG' MALIBIRAN ACCUSED AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The hearsay rule states that a witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because he was told, or he read or heard the same. This is derived from Section 36, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, which requires that a witness can testify only to those facts that he knows of or comes from his personal knowledge, that is, that are derived from his perception. Hearsay testimony may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned.[21]
	GR No. 180314 2009-04-16	NORMALLAH A. PACASUM v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We do not agree with the petitioner. It is a settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[63] The determination of the credibility of witnesses is the domain of the trial court, as it is in the best position to observe the witnesses' demeanor.[64] The Sandiganbayan has given full probative value to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. So have we. We find no reason to depart from such a rule.
	GR No. 168437 2009-01-08	LAURINIO GOMA v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[13]