Lawyerly

GR No. 179280

2009-08-27

CARPIO MORALES, J.

While in rape cases, the lone testimony of the supposed victim is enough to sustain a conviction, the testimony must meet the test of credibility which requires that it should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but should likewise be credible and reasonable in itself.[26] It must conform to human knowledge, observation and experience, and whatever is repugnant to these is outside of juridical cognizance.[27] The Court finds that the testimony of BBB does not measure up to this test of credibility.

GR No. 182420

2009-07-23

PEOPLE v. ELSIE BARBA Y BIAZON

VELASCO JR., J.

The CA in its decision[12] affirmed the RTC decision. The CA held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The two police officers who took the stand both testified that Barba was caught in flagrante delicto, and their testimonies agreed on the essential facts. According to the CA, the elements required for proving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs were met in consonance with People v. Mala: first, the identity of the seller and the buyer, as well as the object and the consideration of the sale, was proved; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it was likewise shown.[13]

GR No. 154878

2007-03-16

CAROLYN M. GARCIA

CORONA, J.

In the assessment of the testimonies of witnesses, this Court is guided by the rule that for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself such as the common experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of juridical cognizance.[37]

GR No. 145348

2004-06-14

PEOPLE v. ZENG HUA DIAN

AZCUNA, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, conviction is proper if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[11] In this case, the sale of the illegal substance was adequately established and the prosecution witnesses clearly identified both appellants as the offenders. Furthermore, the substance itself, was properly identified and presented before the court.

GR No. 138386-87

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The trial court lent credence to the testimony of Adoracion. Basic is the rule that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[28] The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[29] In People vs. Magallanes[30], we held that:The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, or the forthright tone of a ready reply, or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.

GR No. 135378

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

With regard to appellant Que, after a close scrutiny of the entire records of the case, we find no fact or circumstance of special importance that would justify overturning the ruling of the court a quo regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the elements necessary for conviction for the offense of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[53]

GR No. 135378

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In People vs. Mala, et al., we enunciated that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[62]

GR No. 135378

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

With regard to appellant Que, after a close scrutiny of the entire records of the case, we find no fact or circumstance of special importance that would justify overturning the ruling of the court a quo regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the elements necessary for conviction for the offense of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[53]

GR No. 135378

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In People vs. Mala, et al., we enunciated that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[62]

GR No. 144545

2004-03-10

PEOPLE v. RUBEN TIU

AZCUNA, J.

Only two elements are to be proven for the prosecution of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[8] Both elements were proven in this case by the testimony of P/Insp. Mañibo: Q And while you were inside your vehicle what if anything happened?

	GR No. 179280 2009-08-27	PEOPLE v. PEDRO CALANGI CARPIO MORALES, J.
While in rape cases, the lone testimony of the supposed victim is enough to sustain a conviction, the testimony must meet the test of credibility which requires that it should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but should likewise be credible and reasonable in itself.[26] It must conform to human knowledge, observation and experience, and whatever is repugnant to these is outside of juridical cognizance.[27] The Court finds that the testimony of BBB does not measure up to this test of credibility.
	GR No. 182420 2009-07-23	PEOPLE v. ELSIE BARBA Y BIAZON VELASCO JR., J.
The CA in its decision[12] affirmed the RTC decision. The CA held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The two police officers who took the stand both testified that Barba was caught in flagrante delicto, and their testimonies agreed on the essential facts. According to the CA, the elements required for proving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs were met in consonance with People v. Mala: first, the identity of the seller and the buyer, as well as the object and the consideration of the sale, was proved; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it was likewise shown.[13]
	GR No. 154878 2007-03-16	CAROLYN M. GARCIA CORONA, J.
In the assessment of the testimonies of witnesses, this Court is guided by the rule that for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself such as the common experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of juridical cognizance.[37]
	GR No. 145348 2004-06-14	PEOPLE v. ZENG HUA DIAN AZCUNA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, conviction is proper if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[11] In this case, the sale of the illegal substance was adequately established and the prosecution witnesses clearly identified both appellants as the offenders. Furthermore, the substance itself, was properly identified and presented before the court.
	GR No. 138386-87 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The trial court lent credence to the testimony of Adoracion. Basic is the rule that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[28] The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[29] In People vs. Magallanes[30], we held that:The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, or the forthright tone of a ready reply, or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.
	GR No. 135378 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With regard to appellant Que, after a close scrutiny of the entire records of the case, we find no fact or circumstance of special importance that would justify overturning the ruling of the court a quo regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the elements necessary for conviction for the offense of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[53]
	GR No. 135378 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In People vs. Mala, et al., we enunciated that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[62]
	GR No. 135378 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With regard to appellant Que, after a close scrutiny of the entire records of the case, we find no fact or circumstance of special importance that would justify overturning the ruling of the court a quo regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the elements necessary for conviction for the offense of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[53]
	GR No. 135378 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In People vs. Mala, et al., we enunciated that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[62]
	GR No. 144545 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. RUBEN TIU AZCUNA, J.
Only two elements are to be proven for the prosecution of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[8] Both elements were proven in this case by the testimony of P/Insp. Mañibo: Q And while you were inside your vehicle what if anything happened?

PEOPLE v. JAMIL MALA Y RAJID