Lawyerly

GR NO. 147913

2007-01-31

CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE

The trial court's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at arbitrarily or that the trial court overlooked material facts.[46] The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the direct opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses at the witness stand and detect if they are telling the truth or not.[47] We will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses.

GR No. 133027

2004-03-04

PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Moreover, in the absence of a cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, the Court accords higher respect to the assessment of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses for it is the trial court that observed the demeanor of the witnesses. As the Court held in People vs. Balgos: … we note the well-established rule that the trial court's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the outcome of the case. The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses.[48] For the above reasons, we hold that the trial court correctly ruled that appellants failed to prove self-defense on the part of appellant Paul.

GR No. 135877

2002-08-22

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO NICOLAS Y OCAMPO

QUISUMBING, J.

testifying against a relative.[36] Time and again this Court has accorded great weight to factual findings of the trial court, particularly as regards credibility of witnesses, for it had the opportunity to observe first-hand the deportment and demeanor of witnesses.[37] Moreover, a careful perusal of the records of this case shows that appellant's defense of denial is weak. It was not positively corroborated even by his nephew, who merely testified as to the occurrences in the area prior to the time of the alleged rape. Denial and alibi

GR No. 137048

2001-05-24

PEOPLE v. CASTRO GERABAN

PER CURIAM

Dolores is quite uncertain as to VENUS' age.[40] As a mother, she should have personal knowledge of the ages[41] and birth of her children. Thus, she could have stated the exact age of VENUS or the date of her birth.

GR No. 137282

2001-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD

DE LEON, JR., J.

From this Court's own meticulous review of the testimony of complainant Twinkle Alipar, it appears that the said testimony, with all the attendant emotional overtures, is plain, straightforward, to the point and unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, very typical of that an innocent child whose virtue has been violated, and thus, deserves full faith and credit.[26] She testified, thus -

GR No. 137696

2001-01-24

PEOPLE v. EDDIE SERNADILLA

PER CURIAM

With respect to accused-appellant's first argument in his appellant's brief, we note the well-established rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the outcome of the case.[8] The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it is in a position to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses.[9] It is only the trial court which has the unique opportunity to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness's deportment on the witness stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts which usually rely on the silent records of the case[10]

GR Nos. 135511-13

2000-11-17

PEOPLE v. ENRICO MARIANO

PER CURIAM

Time and again this Court has held that when it comes to the issue of credibility, this Court ordinarily defers to the assessment and evaluation given by the trial court for only the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe that elusive and incommunicble evidence of the witness' deportment on the witness stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts which usually rely on the cold pages of the silent records of the case.[37] Only when such assessment is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence will the appellate court depart from the trial court's factual conclusions.[38] None appears in the subject Criminal Cases Nos. 10343-SP, 10344-SP and 10345-SP.

GR No. 126135

2000-10-25

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO OCFEMIA Y MAIMOT

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

accused-appellant had testified in his defense. He declared that he reached home from work at around 11:00 o'clock in the evening of September 22, 1995 and was informed by his wife that Miriam was killed. He testified that he did not know who killed her. On cross-examination, he stated that at the time he pleaded guilty upon arraignment, he was confused and did not know anything about the case.[13] The invocation of denial and alibi as his defense indicates that he was in full control of his mental faculties. It has been held that a shift in theory by the defense, from denial and alibi to a plea of insanity, made apparently after realizing the futility of his earlier defense, is a clear indication that his defense is a mere concoction.[14] Moreover, the eyewitness account of the accused-appellant's common-law wife of five (5) years never mentioned any indication that the accused-appellant could not have been in his right mind when he committed the crime, and renders the theory of insanity doubtful. The eyewitness stated that prior to stabbing the victim, the accused-appellant told the members of the household to go to sleep while he walked around the room, smoking and drinking coffee, that the accused-appellant also told Margie not to tell his brothers and the brother of Miriam that she touched the private parts of the victim. Such actuations are hardly the actuations of a man not in full possession of his mental faculties. Although the accused-appellant testified that he could not recall how he reached the Mormon chapel in Taguig, after leaving his house at around 11:00 o'clock p.m. on September 22, 1995, and could not recall at what time he reached the house of his brother, who informed him that Miriam was stabbed, he failed to ask who was the killer and merely surrendered to the policemen.[15] We agree with appellee that his professed inability to recall events before and after the stabbing incident does not necessarily indicate an aberrant mind but is more indicative of a concocted excuse to exculpate himself. We find no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's conclusion that the accused-appellant was feigning insanity to justify his application for mental examination when he testified that when he left home in the evening of September 22, 1995, he was confused and lost his direction. The fact that the accused-appellant originally pleaded guilty and thereafter changed his plea to "not guilty" does not support a claim that there were indications of "mental dysfunction". It is not uncommon for an accused to change his plea. In this case, upon his own motion,

GR Nos. 131167-68

2000-08-23

PEOPLE v. NELSON DELA CRUZ Y VILLATORA

PER CURIAM

unrebutted by any other evidence. To be sure, this is not the first time that the Court is relying on the testimony of the victim's mother to establish the minority age of the victim. In People vs. Balgos,[30] where the rape victim was six (6) years of age, we relied on the testimony of the victim's mother to prove the victim's age. Reposing trust on the testimony of the victim's mother, we imposed the death penalty on the accused-appellant. We come now to the civil liability of the appellant. We affirm the trial court's award of moral damages to each of the victims in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). In rape cases, moral damages may be awarded to the victim in such amount as the court deems just,

GR No. 124453

2000-03-15

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH PAMBID Y CORNELIO

MENDOZA, J.

We find accused-appellant's plea of insanity unacceptable. To begin with, his shift of theory, from denial and alibi to plea of insanity, made apparently after realizing the futility of his earlier defense, is a clear indication that his defenses are nothing but mere concoctions.[29]

	GR NO. 147913 2007-01-31	CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE
The trial court's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at arbitrarily or that the trial court overlooked material facts.[46] The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the direct opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses at the witness stand and detect if they are telling the truth or not.[47] We will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses.
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, in the absence of a cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, the Court accords higher respect to the assessment of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses for it is the trial court that observed the demeanor of the witnesses. As the Court held in People vs. Balgos: … we note the well-established rule that the trial court's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the outcome of the case. The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses.[48] For the above reasons, we hold that the trial court correctly ruled that appellants failed to prove self-defense on the part of appellant Paul.
	GR No. 135877 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO NICOLAS Y OCAMPO QUISUMBING, J.
testifying against a relative.[36] Time and again this Court has accorded great weight to factual findings of the trial court, particularly as regards credibility of witnesses, for it had the opportunity to observe first-hand the deportment and demeanor of witnesses.[37] Moreover, a careful perusal of the records of this case shows that appellant's defense of denial is weak. It was not positively corroborated even by his nephew, who merely testified as to the occurrences in the area prior to the time of the alleged rape. Denial and alibi
	GR No. 137048 2001-05-24	PEOPLE v. CASTRO GERABAN PER CURIAM
Dolores is quite uncertain as to VENUS' age.[40] As a mother, she should have personal knowledge of the ages[41] and birth of her children. Thus, she could have stated the exact age of VENUS or the date of her birth.
	GR No. 137282 2001-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD DE LEON, JR., J.
From this Court's own meticulous review of the testimony of complainant Twinkle Alipar, it appears that the said testimony, with all the attendant emotional overtures, is plain, straightforward, to the point and unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, very typical of that an innocent child whose virtue has been violated, and thus, deserves full faith and credit.[26] She testified, thus -
	GR No. 137696 2001-01-24	PEOPLE v. EDDIE SERNADILLA PER CURIAM
With respect to accused-appellant's first argument in his appellant's brief, we note the well-established rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the outcome of the case.[8] The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it is in a position to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses.[9] It is only the trial court which has the unique opportunity to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness's deportment on the witness stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts which usually rely on the silent records of the case[10]
	GR Nos. 135511-13 2000-11-17	PEOPLE v. ENRICO MARIANO PER CURIAM
Time and again this Court has held that when it comes to the issue of credibility, this Court ordinarily defers to the assessment and evaluation given by the trial court for only the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe that elusive and incommunicble evidence of the witness' deportment on the witness stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts which usually rely on the cold pages of the silent records of the case.[37] Only when such assessment is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence will the appellate court depart from the trial court's factual conclusions.[38] None appears in the subject Criminal Cases Nos. 10343-SP, 10344-SP and 10345-SP.
	GR No. 126135 2000-10-25	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO OCFEMIA Y MAIMOT GONZAGA-REYES, J.
accused-appellant had testified in his defense. He declared that he reached home from work at around 11:00 o'clock in the evening of September 22, 1995 and was informed by his wife that Miriam was killed. He testified that he did not know who killed her. On cross-examination, he stated that at the time he pleaded guilty upon arraignment, he was confused and did not know anything about the case.[13] The invocation of denial and alibi as his defense indicates that he was in full control of his mental faculties. It has been held that a shift in theory by the defense, from denial and alibi to a plea of insanity, made apparently after realizing the futility of his earlier defense, is a clear indication that his defense is a mere concoction.[14] Moreover, the eyewitness account of the accused-appellant's common-law wife of five (5) years never mentioned any indication that the accused-appellant could not have been in his right mind when he committed the crime, and renders the theory of insanity doubtful. The eyewitness stated that prior to stabbing the victim, the accused-appellant told the members of the household to go to sleep while he walked around the room, smoking and drinking coffee, that the accused-appellant also told Margie not to tell his brothers and the brother of Miriam that she touched the private parts of the victim. Such actuations are hardly the actuations of a man not in full possession of his mental faculties. Although the accused-appellant testified that he could not recall how he reached the Mormon chapel in Taguig, after leaving his house at around 11:00 o'clock p.m. on September 22, 1995, and could not recall at what time he reached the house of his brother, who informed him that Miriam was stabbed, he failed to ask who was the killer and merely surrendered to the policemen.[15] We agree with appellee that his professed inability to recall events before and after the stabbing incident does not necessarily indicate an aberrant mind but is more indicative of a concocted excuse to exculpate himself. We find no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's conclusion that the accused-appellant was feigning insanity to justify his application for mental examination when he testified that when he left home in the evening of September 22, 1995, he was confused and lost his direction. The fact that the accused-appellant originally pleaded guilty and thereafter changed his plea to "not guilty" does not support a claim that there were indications of "mental dysfunction". It is not uncommon for an accused to change his plea. In this case, upon his own motion,
	GR Nos. 131167-68 2000-08-23	PEOPLE v. NELSON DELA CRUZ Y VILLATORA PER CURIAM
unrebutted by any other evidence. To be sure, this is not the first time that the Court is relying on the testimony of the victim's mother to establish the minority age of the victim. In People vs. Balgos,[30] where the rape victim was six (6) years of age, we relied on the testimony of the victim's mother to prove the victim's age. Reposing trust on the testimony of the victim's mother, we imposed the death penalty on the accused-appellant. We come now to the civil liability of the appellant. We affirm the trial court's award of moral damages to each of the victims in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). In rape cases, moral damages may be awarded to the victim in such amount as the court deems just,
	GR No. 124453 2000-03-15	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH PAMBID Y CORNELIO MENDOZA, J.
We find accused-appellant's plea of insanity unacceptable. To begin with, his shift of theory, from denial and alibi to plea of insanity, made apparently after realizing the futility of his earlier defense, is a clear indication that his defenses are nothing but mere concoctions.[29]

PEOPLE v. ALFONSO BALGOS