Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONRADO CASITAS v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 188561 2010-01-15	PEOPLE v. FELIPE AYADE Y PULOD NACHURA, J.
Note that the RTC found all the prosecution witnesses to be credible witnesses, whose testimonies were natural and convincing, thus, deserving of full faith and credence. It bears stressing that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is usually accorded by the appellate courts full weight and respect, since a trial court judge has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.[17] Note, likewise, that the CA did not disturb the RTC's appreciation of their credibility. Thus, we apply the cardinal rule that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA, and we find no justification to deviate from both courts' findings and their unanimous conclusion that appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape.[18]
	GR No. 182156 2009-11-25	REY A. VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Lastly, the cardinal rule applies that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, particularly when affirmed by the CA. The recognized exception to this rule is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, would change the outcome of the case. We have reviewed the records of the RTC and of the CA, and we find no valid justification to deviate from both courts' findings and their uniform conclusion that appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.[30]
	GR No. 186420 2009-08-25	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ANOD NACHURA, J.
We apply the cardinal rule that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded with great respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances that, if considered, would change the outcome of the case. We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no reason to deviate from the lower courts' findings and their uniform conclusion that appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.[13]
	GR No. 179090 2009-06-05	LEONILO SANCHEZ v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Appellant could only proffer the defense of denial. Notably, the RTC found VVV and MMM to be credible witnesses, whose testimonies deserve full credence. It bears stressing that full weight and respect are usually accorded by the appellate court to the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.[42] Equally noteworthy is the fact that the CA did not disturb the RTC's appreciation of the witnesses' credibility. Thus, we apply the cardinal rule that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on such findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no reason to deviate from the findings of both courts and their uniform conclusion that appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Other Acts of Child Abuse.[43]
	GR No. 163331 2008-08-29	ARELLANO NOVICIO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings and its conclusion.[28] We find that the petitioner has not adequately discharged his burden of proving the elements of self-defense.