Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO RIMORIN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 165065 2006-09-26	MELCHOR G. MADERAZO SENIFORO PERIDO v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the September 3, 2004 Decision[1] of the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioners of unjust vexation in Criminal Case No. 24309.
	GR No. 114917 2001-01-29	LUCIBAR ROCA Y BONDARIO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Where the bone of contention is the credibility of a witness, settled is the rule that the trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility is accorded great weight by appellate courts absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain matters which, if taken into consideration, would have materially affected the outcome of the case.[9] And where the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[10] The determination of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand, a vantage point denied appellate tribunals.[11]
	GR No. 132350 2000-07-05	PEOPLE v. LUTER ORCULA PUNO, J.
Similarly, the prosecution failed to establish that evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime. There was no showing of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof, to allow the offender to reflect on the consequence of his act.[36] None of these elements can even be fairly inferred from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The warning given by the wife of Luter, Sr. to the wife of Oscar about the alleged plan to kill Oscar cannot be considered as proof of the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. As to such fact, the testimony is hearsay and inadmissible. Even if there was such a threat, this alone is not sufficient to prove evident premeditation absent the second element,[37] there being no showing that the accused had deliberately planned to commit the crime after making such threat. Polinar, Jr. testified that when he peeped through the window, he saw the Orculas already surrounding Oscar. There is no testimony as to what happened immediately prior thereto, or as to how the Orculas planned to kill Oscar.