Lawyerly

GR No. 167766

2010-04-07

PERALTA, J.

This Court has meticulously scrutinized the transcripts of stenographic notes of this case and finds that the RTC, as well as the CA, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[23] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[24]

GR No. 186379

2009-08-19

PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO LAZARO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant Bienvenido guilty of the charge. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[38] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[39] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[40] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[41]

GR No. 184598

2009-06-23

PEOPLE v. JULIO MANALILI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In sum, the Courts finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[47] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to t he sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain whether they are telling the truth or not.[48] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[49] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed byt the appellant court.[50]

GR No. 174405

2008-08-26

FLORA BAUTISTA v. FELICIDAD CASTILLO MERCADO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

(4) the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property.[8] Petitioner wants this Court to weigh the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts.[9] When the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court, the general rule applies.[10] This Court will not consider factual issues and evidentiary matters already passed upon. The petitioner raises the same issues she brought before the appellate court, which gave credence to the findings and decision of the trial court.

GR No. 178540

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Although the employees of Canscor Construction and Development Corporation were taken by surprise when the robbery took place, they were able to get a good look at the robbers who went inside the office. The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to see the looks and faces of the malefactors and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[8] Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victims' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[9] In fact, experience dictates that precisely because of the startling acts of violence committed in their presence, eyewitnesses can recall with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any given time, the crime has been committed by them. [10] Witnesses need not know the names of the malefactors as long as they recognize their faces. [11] What is imperative is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from the witnesses' own personal knowledge, as is obtaining in this case.[12]

GR No. 172470

2008-04-08

PEOPLE v. SAMMY RAMOS Y DALERE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[56] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[57] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[58] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[59]

GR No. 173360

2008-03-28

LT. COL. PACIFICO G. ALEJO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the main, petitioner wants this Court to weigh the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis that of the defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [12] When the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court, the general rule applies.[13] This Court will not consider factual issues and evidentiary matters already passed upon. The petitioner raises the same issues he brought before the appellate court which gave credence to the findings and decision of the trial court.

GR No. 154466

2008-01-28

CLIMACO AMORA v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Case law states that findings of facts of the trial court, especially if affirmed by the appellate court, are given great respect, if not conclusive effect, by this Court unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case. Having had the unique advantage of observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor and conduct of witnesses, the trial court is in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies.[13]

GR NO. 168051

2006-09-27

PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Time and again, we held that unlawful aggression is a sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense.[42] It is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense.[43] Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated even if the other elements are present.[44] To our mind, unlawful aggression is clearly absent in the case at bar.

GR NO. 165483

2006-09-12

RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Let it not be forgotten that unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense.[47] It is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense.[48] Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present.[49] To our mind, unlawful aggression, as an element of self-defense, is wanting in the instant case.

GR NO. 150723

2006-07-11

RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect admits killing the victim and the burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life.[27] The accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are present.[28]

GR NO. 149652

2006-03-24

EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. PEOPLE

AZCUNA, J.

The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense. It is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[23] On this requisite alone, Baxinela's defense fails. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[24] The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack would not be sufficient. As the evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment. Just before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was safely behind the victim and holding his arm. It was Lajo who was at a disadvantage. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor when he grabbed Lajo's shoulder and started questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears that he was just turning around to face Baxinela and, quite possibly, reaching for his wallet. None of these acts could conceivably be deemed as unlawful aggression on the part of Lajo.

GR No. 144598

2004-02-06

PEOPLE v. RANIL DUETES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

That Cabag saw appellant only once before he testified in court[20] should not detract from his ability to recall appellant's face. Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before witnesses' eyes that they remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time.[21]

GR No. 148810

2003-11-18

PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused.[9] However, where the accused admits commission of the crime but invokes self-defense, the basic rule that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution is reversed, and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove the elements of his defense.[10] It then becomes incumbent upon him to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing.[11] Hence, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction must ensue as a matter of consequence. [12]

	GR No. 167766 2010-04-07	ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
This Court has meticulously scrutinized the transcripts of stenographic notes of this case and finds that the RTC, as well as the CA, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[23] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[24]
	GR No. 186379 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO LAZARO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant Bienvenido guilty of the charge. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[38] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[39] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[40] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[41]
	GR No. 184598 2009-06-23	PEOPLE v. JULIO MANALILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Courts finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[47] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to t he sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain whether they are telling the truth or not.[48] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[49] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed byt the appellant court.[50]
	GR No. 174405 2008-08-26	FLORA BAUTISTA v. FELICIDAD CASTILLO MERCADO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(4) the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property.[8] Petitioner wants this Court to weigh the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts.[9] When the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court, the general rule applies.[10] This Court will not consider factual issues and evidentiary matters already passed upon. The petitioner raises the same issues she brought before the appellate court, which gave credence to the findings and decision of the trial court.
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Although the employees of Canscor Construction and Development Corporation were taken by surprise when the robbery took place, they were able to get a good look at the robbers who went inside the office. The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to see the looks and faces of the malefactors and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[8] Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victims' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[9] In fact, experience dictates that precisely because of the startling acts of violence committed in their presence, eyewitnesses can recall with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any given time, the crime has been committed by them. [10] Witnesses need not know the names of the malefactors as long as they recognize their faces. [11] What is imperative is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from the witnesses' own personal knowledge, as is obtaining in this case.[12]
	GR No. 172470 2008-04-08	PEOPLE v. SAMMY RAMOS Y DALERE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[56] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[57] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[58] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[59]
	GR No. 173360 2008-03-28	LT. COL. PACIFICO G. ALEJO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the main, petitioner wants this Court to weigh the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis that of the defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [12] When the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court, the general rule applies.[13] This Court will not consider factual issues and evidentiary matters already passed upon. The petitioner raises the same issues he brought before the appellate court which gave credence to the findings and decision of the trial court.
	GR No. 154466 2008-01-28	CLIMACO AMORA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Case law states that findings of facts of the trial court, especially if affirmed by the appellate court, are given great respect, if not conclusive effect, by this Court unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case. Having had the unique advantage of observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor and conduct of witnesses, the trial court is in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies.[13]
	GR NO. 168051 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again, we held that unlawful aggression is a sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense.[42] It is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense.[43] Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated even if the other elements are present.[44] To our mind, unlawful aggression is clearly absent in the case at bar.
	GR NO. 165483 2006-09-12	RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Let it not be forgotten that unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense.[47] It is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense.[48] Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present.[49] To our mind, unlawful aggression, as an element of self-defense, is wanting in the instant case.
	GR NO. 150723 2006-07-11	RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect admits killing the victim and the burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life.[27] The accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are present.[28]
	GR NO. 149652 2006-03-24	EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. PEOPLE AZCUNA, J.
The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense. It is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[23] On this requisite alone, Baxinela's defense fails. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[24] The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack would not be sufficient. As the evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment. Just before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was safely behind the victim and holding his arm. It was Lajo who was at a disadvantage. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor when he grabbed Lajo's shoulder and started questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears that he was just turning around to face Baxinela and, quite possibly, reaching for his wallet. None of these acts could conceivably be deemed as unlawful aggression on the part of Lajo.
	GR No. 144598 2004-02-06	PEOPLE v. RANIL DUETES CARPIO MORALES, J.
That Cabag saw appellant only once before he testified in court[20] should not detract from his ability to recall appellant's face. Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before witnesses' eyes that they remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time.[21]
	GR No. 148810 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused.[9] However, where the accused admits commission of the crime but invokes self-defense, the basic rule that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution is reversed, and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove the elements of his defense.[10] It then becomes incumbent upon him to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing.[11] Hence, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction must ensue as a matter of consequence. [12]

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO GALLEGO