Lawyerly

GR No. 203066

2015-08-05

PEREZ, J.

These testimonies are further strengthened by the fact that no ulterior motives were attributed to Betty and Rosebert. "The rule is that where there is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full credence."[39]

GR No. 167955

2009-09-30

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS

PERALTA, J.

Moreover, appellant's rape of private complainant was corroborated by no less than the latter's sister who is also a daughter of appellant. The rule is that where there is no evidence that the witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full credence.[61]

GR NO. 170849

2007-03-07

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MORAN JR. Y GORDULA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Jurisprudence has it that exemplary damages may be given only when one or more aggravating circumstances are alleged in the information and proved during the trial.[19] Here, none are attendant. Thus, the deletion of the award of the same is proper.

GR No. 155256

2004-07-30

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MEDINA

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

We have consistently ruled that the factual findings of the trial court especially on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness and falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply, 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, or the carriage and mien. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts.[14]

GR Nos. 152586-87

2004-03-30

PEOPLE v. ANDRES PAAS ISLABRA

PUNO, J.

On the alleged inconsistencies between the testimonies of Hilda and Mary Jane Paas on whether Hilda was laid on the bed by accused-appellant as claimed by Hilda or on the floor as testified to by Maryjane, and whether it was Margielyn who reported what happened to Rodelio, as testified to by Hilda, or whether Rodelio learned about it during the drinking spree in Jun Movilla's house, as claimed by Mary Jane, suffice it to say that inconsistencies on minor or trivial matters do not affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses and are, on the contrary, badges of truth and safeguards against coached testimony.[23]

GR No. 118027

2004-01-29

PEOPLE v. RICARDO BALATAZO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court awarded P30,000.00 as indemnity to the victim but failed to award moral damages. The decision of the trial court has to be modified. The appellant is ordered to pay to the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity[19] and P50,000.00 as moral damages,[20] conformably to current jurisprudence.

GR No. 130662

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The exact time or date of the commission of rape is not an element of the crime. What is decisive is that the commission of rape by the accused has been sufficiently proved. Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[13] In this case, the alleged inconsistency in Charito's testimony regarding the exact date and place of the commission of rape does not impair her credibility.

GR No. 128882

2003-10-02

PEOPLE v. JOEL AYUDA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

x x x"[3] The trial court found Gloriphine's testimony credible since it was forthright, positive and emphatically unsullied by inconsistencies; and that being credible, her testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the victim 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, the forthright tone of a ready reply, 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, or the carriage and mien. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts. We do not find any of these exceptions in the case at bar.[4]

GR No. 142740

2003-08-06

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO TAMPOS Y AGUSTIN

QUISUMBING, J.

Moreover, the severity of death penalty, especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.[61] The OSG's prayer to increase appellant's culpability to a capital offense cannot, in our view, be granted now without also fracturing our present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. For now, in Rule 110 made effective on December 1, 2000,[62] we find strict requirements for the State Prosecutor to observe faithfully, thus:Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

GR No. 146590

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO OPERARIO Y GORIMO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Appellant alleges that complainant concocted the charge of rape against him because he shouted and scolded at her on the night of September 30, 1997. However, we find this motive too inconsequential vis-à-vis the grave nature of the accusation of rape. Likewise, his submission that his wife's relatives had gripes against him fails to persuade. The rule is that where there is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so actuated and her testimony is entitled to full credence.[13]

GR No. 146590

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO OPERARIO Y GORIMO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In People v. Invencion,[20] citing People v. Pruna, the following guidelines in appreciating age as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance was laid down, to wit: The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.

	GR No. 203066 2015-08-05	PEOPLE v. RODELIO LLOBERA Y OFIZA PEREZ, J.
These testimonies are further strengthened by the fact that no ulterior motives were attributed to Betty and Rosebert. "The rule is that where there is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full credence."[39]
	GR No. 167955 2009-09-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS PERALTA, J.
Moreover, appellant's rape of private complainant was corroborated by no less than the latter's sister who is also a daughter of appellant. The rule is that where there is no evidence that the witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full credence.[61]
	GR NO. 170849 2007-03-07	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MORAN JR. Y GORDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Jurisprudence has it that exemplary damages may be given only when one or more aggravating circumstances are alleged in the information and proved during the trial.[19] Here, none are attendant. Thus, the deletion of the award of the same is proper.
	GR No. 155256 2004-07-30	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MEDINA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
We have consistently ruled that the factual findings of the trial court especially on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness and falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply, 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, or the carriage and mien. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts.[14]
	GR Nos. 152586-87 2004-03-30	PEOPLE v. ANDRES PAAS ISLABRA PUNO, J.
On the alleged inconsistencies between the testimonies of Hilda and Mary Jane Paas on whether Hilda was laid on the bed by accused-appellant as claimed by Hilda or on the floor as testified to by Maryjane, and whether it was Margielyn who reported what happened to Rodelio, as testified to by Hilda, or whether Rodelio learned about it during the drinking spree in Jun Movilla's house, as claimed by Mary Jane, suffice it to say that inconsistencies on minor or trivial matters do not affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses and are, on the contrary, badges of truth and safeguards against coached testimony.[23]
	GR No. 118027 2004-01-29	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BALATAZO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court awarded P30,000.00 as indemnity to the victim but failed to award moral damages. The decision of the trial court has to be modified. The appellant is ordered to pay to the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity[19] and P50,000.00 as moral damages,[20] conformably to current jurisprudence.
	GR No. 130662 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The exact time or date of the commission of rape is not an element of the crime. What is decisive is that the commission of rape by the accused has been sufficiently proved. Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[13] In this case, the alleged inconsistency in Charito's testimony regarding the exact date and place of the commission of rape does not impair her credibility.
	GR No. 128882 2003-10-02	PEOPLE v. JOEL AYUDA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
x x x"[3] The trial court found Gloriphine's testimony credible since it was forthright, positive and emphatically unsullied by inconsistencies; and that being credible, her testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the victim 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, the forthright tone of a ready reply, 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, or the carriage and mien. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts. We do not find any of these exceptions in the case at bar.[4]
	GR No. 142740 2003-08-06	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO TAMPOS Y AGUSTIN QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, the severity of death penalty, especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.[61] The OSG's prayer to increase appellant's culpability to a capital offense cannot, in our view, be granted now without also fracturing our present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. For now, in Rule 110 made effective on December 1, 2000,[62] we find strict requirements for the State Prosecutor to observe faithfully, thus:Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
	GR No. 146590 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO OPERARIO Y GORIMO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant alleges that complainant concocted the charge of rape against him because he shouted and scolded at her on the night of September 30, 1997. However, we find this motive too inconsequential vis-à-vis the grave nature of the accusation of rape. Likewise, his submission that his wife's relatives had gripes against him fails to persuade. The rule is that where there is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so actuated and her testimony is entitled to full credence.[13]
	GR No. 146590 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO OPERARIO Y GORIMO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Invencion,[20] citing People v. Pruna, the following guidelines in appreciating age as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance was laid down, to wit: The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO INVENCION Y SORIANO