This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[17] Appellant's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants.[18] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[19] Furthermore, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive.[20] | |||||
|
2011-08-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Finally, accused-appellant's allegation of frame-up or planting of evidence will not avail him any, given the categorical testimonies of PO1 Mangapit and SPO2 Bal of the events leading to accused-appellant's apprehension and eventual custodial investigation. In the absence of any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by motives less than proper, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court.[18] | |||||
|
2010-12-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Lastly, the appellant's argument that she did not derive any consideration from the transactions or that she made the assurances after Dimayuga's representations were made to the complainants cannot serve to exonerate her from the crime. We emphasize that the absence of a consideration or misrepresentations employed by the appellant is not material in the prosecution for illegal recruitment. By its very definition, illegal recruitment is deemed committed by the mere act of promising employment without a license or authority and whether for profit or not. Moreover, we previously held that the time when the misrepresentation was made, whether prior or simultaneous to the delivery of the money of the complainants, is only material in the crime of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and not in the crime of illegal recruitment.[4] | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Under the above-quoted provision, there are three (3) ways of committing estafa: (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits.[56] To convict for this type of crime, it is essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the complainant to part with the thing of value.[57] | |||||