Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TEODORICO CLEOPAS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 181843 2014-07-14	MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
These alleged inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specially with respect to the "principal occurrence and positive identification"[89] of petitioner. Slight inconsistencies in the testimony even strengthen credibility as they show that the "testimony [was] not rehearsed."[90] What is important is that there is consistency as to the occurrence and identity of the perpetrator.[91]
	GR No. 181843 2014-07-14	MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
(1) [T]he employment of means, method, or manner of execution which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate;[124] and
	GR No. 181843 2014-07-14	MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
(2) [D]eliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution.[125]
	GR No. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals also properly disregarded the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength because it is absorbed and inherent in treachery.[55] As such, it cannot be separately appreciated as an independent aggravating circumstance.[56]
	GR No. 181467 2008-08-06	PEOPLE v. AMBROSIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The RTC also properly disregarded the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength because it is absorbed and inherent in treachery.[35] As such, it cannot be separately appreciated as an independent aggravating circumstance.[36]
	GR NO. 142762 2005-03-04	LILANY YULO Y BILLONES v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court. Settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court which have been affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.[13] This exception is not present here. That Myrna was the sole witness for the prosecution is of no moment. There is no law requiring that the testimony of a single witness must be corroborated. The rule in this jurisdiction is that the testimony of witnesses is weighed, not numbered, and the testimony of a single witness, if found trustworthy and credible, as in this case, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.[14]
	GR No. 116239 2000-11-29	PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO MERCADO Y HERNANDO PER CURIAM
(12) SPO1 Buama testified that Richard was his full blood brother, but his sister, Maria Buama, said that Richard was an adopted child, although they considered him their full blood brother.[31] Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants. Slight contradictions in fact even serve to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses and prove that their testimonies are not rehearsed. They are thus safeguards against memorized perjury.[32]
	GR No. 120170 2000-05-30	PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO DIMAILIG y CARAIG PARDO, J.
The fatal stabbing of Arlene Guaves was qualified by treachery. Hence, the crime committed was murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the crime was committed on October 3, 1993, prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659,[38] the penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code in effect at the time was reclusion temporal maximum to death. Considering the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposable is the medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.[39]