Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO GARCHITORENA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 193664 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO VELASCO JR., J.
It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is "entitled to great weight and is even conclusive and binding, if it is not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence,"[31] the reason being the trial judge enjoys the peculiar advantage of observing firsthand the deportment of the witnesses while testifying, and is, therefore, in a better position to form accurate impressions and conclusions.[32]
	GR No. 164968 2009-07-03	GLORIA OCAMPO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
As regards the 20% portion of the quedan loan, Land Bank filed on March 27, 2000 a petition[16] for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended. On April 4, 2000, the Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan issued a Notice of Extrajudicial Sale,[17] setting the sale at public auction on May 30, 2000, a copy of which was furnished to, and received by, Ocampo.
	GR NO. 147902 2006-03-17	SPS. VICENTE YU AND DEMETRIA LEE-YU v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On June 1, 2000, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.[17] On November 14, 2000, the CA dismissed petitioners' Petition for Certiorari on the grounds that petitioners violated Section 8 of Act No. 3135 and disregarded the rule against multiplicity of suits in filing Civil Case No. 99-03169-D in RTC Branch 44 despite full knowledge of the pendency of Spec. Proc. No. 99-00988-D in RTC Branch 43; that since the one-year period of redemption has already lapsed, the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of respondent becomes a ministerial duty of the trial court; that the issues in Civil Case No. 99-03169-D are not prejudicial questions to Spec. Proc. No. 99-00988-D because: (a) the special proceeding is already fait accompli, (b) Civil Case No. 99-03169-D is deemed not filed for being contrary to Section 8 of Act No. 3135, (c) the filing of Civil Case No. 99-03169-D is an afterthought and dilatory in nature, and (d) legally speaking what seems to exist is litis pendentia and not prejudicial question.[18]
	GR No. 117216 2000-08-09	PEOPLE v. JOCELYN ACBANGIN Y RADAM PARDO, J.
witnesses." A witness' young age will not deter him or her from being a competent and credible witness. To be a competent child witness, the following criteria must be met: (a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection and (c) capacity of communication.[31] All these were met by Sweet. Besides, the trial court's assessment of Sweet's credibility should be upheld and respected since its assessment was not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of any material fact.[32] Burdensome and harsh as it may be, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. True, Sweet was not maltreated. True also, that at the time of the crime, Jocelyn was only 21 years old. However, the crime as defined by law was committed.