Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR Nos. 149430-32 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. CARMELO CATBAGAN PANGANIBAN, J.
Hence, no unlawful aggression by Lapidante was shown. Because the presence thereof is a statutory and doctrinal conditio sine qua non of the justifying circumstance of self-defense[58] complete or incomplete we need not examine the presence of the other requisites.
	GR No. 149492 2003-01-20	JOEL LUCES v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the conviction of the petitioner. A careful review of the records shows that the positive identification of petitioner by Dante Reginio is convincing and worthy of credence. Finding no ill-motive that would impel said witness to testify falsely against the petitioner, the trial court's assessment of his credibility must be affirmed.[21] The settled rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might well affect the result of the case. [22] We find no cogent reason to depart from this doctrine in the case at bar.