Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO MALOLOT

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 201565 2014-10-13	PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses on the witness stand and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it. It is, thus, no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[52]
	GR No. 191723 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses on the witness stand and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it. It is, thus, no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[45]
	GR No. 192251 2011-02-16	PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS VELASCO JR., J.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose.[40] Conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to establish the crime--proof beyond reasonable doubt;[41] as mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.[42]
	GR No. 188105 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. MONICO DE CHAVEZ Y PERLAS VELASCO JR., J.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[22] Conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to establish the crime--proof beyond reasonable doubt;[23] as mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.[24]
	GR No. 187682 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ROMAN LACADEN Y PARINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses on the witness stand and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it. It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[8]
	GR No. 171735 2009-04-16	PEOPLE v. ALEJO OBLIGADO Y MAGDARAOG CORONA, J.
With respect to the award of damages, to conform with recent jurisprudence, the appellant is ordered to pay P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.[8]
	GR No. 183567 2009-01-19	PEOPLE v. AVELINO DELA PEÑA NACHURA, J.
Thus, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's reliance on the testimony of eyewitness Maria. Findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[39] Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial court's findings are even accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[40] It must also be emphasized that, here, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[41]
	GR No. 184182 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO M. PAPA CORONA, J.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness accounts of the victim's daughters were more plausible than appellant's incredible version of facts. Appellant is clearly guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. Nonetheless, to conform with recent jurisprudence, he is ordered to pay P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.[7]