This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of parricide,[12] which punishes any person "who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse."[13] The relationship between the offender and the victim distinguishes the crime of parricide from murder[14] or homicide.[15] However, the issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide. Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
CARPIO-MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic in criminal jurisprudence that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, an appellate court will normally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court unless the latter has reached conclusions that are clearly unsupported by evidence, or unless some facts or circumstances of weight or influence were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the result of the case. The rationale for this is that trial courts have superior advantages in ascertaining the truth and in detecting falsehood as they have the opportunity to observe at close range the manner and demeanor of witnesses while testifying.[28] In the absence of any showing that the trial court, whose findings were affirmed by the appellate court, acted arbitrarily in the appreciation of evidence, this Court respects the same. | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [17] People v. Dalag, 450 Phil. 304, 314 (2003); Marco v. Court of Appeals, 339 Phil. 467, 471 (1997). | |||||