This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-10-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, let it be emphasized that the issue being raised is one of credibility which is naturally factual a domain of the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified[13] whose finding is, as such, entitled to respect. And we do not consider the accused's observations as relevant facts of substance which can affect the result of the case. | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The urging of the accused that the Court should review her case due to the conflicting versions of the parties is unwarranted. The determination of which of the different versions was to be believed is fundamentally an issue of credibility whose resolution belonged to the domain of the trial judge who had observed the deportment and manner of the witnesses at the time of their testimony. [10] The Court naturally accords great respect to the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, because the trial judge was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies by reason of his unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. [11] With more reason do we hold so herein, for the CA, as the reviewing tribunal, affirmed the RTC, as the trial court. [12] The accused bore the ensuing obligation to demonstrate to our satisfaction that the CA had overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance that, if considered, would change the outcome. Alas, she did not do so. | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the issue of credibility is the domain of the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified.[52] The findings of facts of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses, certainly deserve respect by an appellate court.[53] Unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, may affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses, it being in a better position to decide the question, having heard and observed the witnesses themselves.[54] | |||||
|
2001-07-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, accused-appellant cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a warrant. The records show that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on November 11, 1997. It is true that on August 28, 1997, he filed a petition for reinvestigation in which he alleged that he had been illegally detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest. In its order, dated September 9, 1997, the trial court granted his motion and ordered the City Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation and submit his findings within thirty (30) days thereof.[36] On October 7, 1997, City Prosecutor Agapito S. Lu moved for the resetting of accused-appellant's arraignment from October 8, 1997 to the first week of November, 1997 on the ground that the findings on the laboratory and ballistics examinations had not yet been received from the NBI.[37] Accused-appellant did not object to the arraignment. The City Prosecutor's request was, therefore, granted and the arraignment was reset to November 11, 1997.[38] Nor did accused-appellant move to quash the information on the ground that his arrest was illegal and, therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction over his person. Instead, on November 11, 1997, at the scheduled arraignment, accused-appellant, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.[39] On the same day, the trial court issued an order stating that, as a result of accused-appellant's arraignment, his motion for preliminary investigation had become moot and academic and, accordingly, set the case for trial.[40] Accused-appellant thus waived the right to object to the legality of his arrest.[41] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| By entering a plea of not guilty and participating actively in the trial, however, accused-appellant Galvez waived his right to raise the issue of the illegality of his arrest. It is now settled that objection to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.[23] The fact that the arrest was illegal does not render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts point to the culpability of the accused.[24] | |||||
|
2000-11-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We come now to the penalty to be imposed upon the accused Ladera. The amounts involved are P25,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-94-58849, P28,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-94-58850, and P29,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-94-58851. All these amounts are in excess of the P22,000.00 provided in the first paragraph of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, but the excess is less than P10,000.00 for each case, hence, does not warrant the imposition of an additional one year imprisonment. There being no modifying circumstances attending the commission of the crimes, the correct penalty in each of the three estafa cases should be the indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.[24] With respect to Criminal Case No. Q-94-58852, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).[25] | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| "fn">[29] Surely, the trial judge must have witnessed this first-hand and this must have guided him in rendering his decision. We, therefore, respect his findings, there being no showing of manifest error. Well settled is the rule that the issue of credibility is the domain of the trial court that had observed the deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified. The findings of facts of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses certainly deserve respect by an appellate court.[30] The trial judge is in a better position to decide the question of credibility, since he personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. He had before him the essential aids to determine whether a witness was telling the truth or lying. | |||||