Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CAMELO LENANTUD Y LINAMIN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 174730-37 2011-02-09	ROSALIO S. GALEOS v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Conspiracy need not be shown by direct proof of an agreement of the parties to commit the crime,[39] as it can be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime.[40] In this case, Ong administered the oaths to Galeos and Rivera in the subject SALN not just once, but three times, a clear manifestation that he concurred with the making of the untruthful statement therein concerning relatives in the government service.
	GR No. 183479 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JERRY R. PEPINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Pepino's position fails to persuade. The victim's in-court identification was more than sufficient to establish his identity as one of the malefactors.[29] The victim's Sinumpaang Salaysay is generally considered inferior to that she gave in open court.[30] Anyway, she satisfactorily explained why she failed to point to Pepino in the 30-person line-up, viz: Atty. Chua: We noticed that under par. 17 of this particular affidavit[,] you only identified Alfredo Pelenio and Daisy Balaan, and in the courtroom, you identified Jerry Pepino[.] [C]an you tell us why you didn't identify Jerry Pepino at the time you executed this affidavit? Witness: While I was at the NBI, they showed me about thirty (30) persons there, and thru that mirror, I was not able to see Jerry Pepino. Q: When were you able to point to Jerry Pepino? A: When we saw each other at the Department of Justice (DOJ).[31] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR Nos. 152624-25 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO ANDALES PANGANIBAN, J.
"x x x. He even offers the testimony [of] his witness Leopoldo Garino, a fellow tricycle driver, to collaborate his allegations. Unfortunately, however, no details were ever presented by the accused and his witness regarding the time when they were actually plying their tricycle to show that it would be impossible for the accused to be at the place and at the time of the alleged rape complained of."[42] In the light of the positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, his denial and alibi cannot be sustained.[43]
	GR No. 141518 2003-04-29	PEOPLE v. CLARENCE ASTUDILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
From the attendant circumstances, it is evident that appellants' collective and individual act of holding the victim's wrists and delivering several stab blows demonstrated the existence of their common design to kill the victim. Direct proof of an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and the decision to commit it is not necessary. Conspiracy, as in the instant case, can be inferred from the acts of the three appellants which clearly manifest a concurrence of wills and a common intent or design to commit a crime.[23]
	GR No. 133650 2002-02-19	PEOPLE v. RAMIL MATIC Y BACTAD DE LEON, JR., J.
The appellant's contention is devoid of merit. We agree with the Solicitor General that the divergence of Escala's testimony from his sworn statement did not impair his credibility. The infirmity of affidavits as a species of evidence is a common occurrence in judicial experience.[16] Being ex parte, they are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, but these factors do not denigrate the credibility of witnesses.[17] As such, affidavits are generally considered to be inferior to testimony given in the court.[18]
	GR No. 123819 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This Court has consistently ruled that factual findings of the trial court deserve the highest respect. This is based on the fact that the trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before his sala as he had personally heard them and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[65] Especially, where issues raised involve the credibility of witnesses, the trial court's findings thereon will not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts, or circumstances of weight or substance, which could have affected the result of the case.[66] Succinctly put, findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses command great weight and respect since it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor while they testified in court.[67]