Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MARCOS SABADLAB Y NARCISO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 212205 2015-07-06	PEOPLE v. OBALDO BANDRIL Y TABLING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
[Q]: So you remember when was the first time? A: In March 2007, Ma 'am. xxx Q: When your father went on top of you was he nude? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: So when he went on top of you, what did he do next? A: He already raped me, Ma 'am. Q: When you say he raped [you], what exactly did he do to you, Madam Witness? A: "Inaano niya ako sa ari ko." Q: Are you telling us that your father inserted his penis to your vagina? xxx A: Yes Ma'am. Q: So how long was your father's penis in your vagina, if you could tell us? A: Quite a long time, Ma 'am x x x.[10] [Second rape] [Q]: xxx So when did the second rape incident happened? A: In the month of June 2007 Ma 'am. Q: So tell us what happened on that second time? A: Same thing happened Ma 'am. xxx Q: So tell us exactly what was that same incident that happened? A: He also took off my clothes Ma 'am. Q: After taking off your clothes, what did he do next? A: He inserted his penis. Q: On what part of your body did he insert his penis? A: Into my vagina. Q: And for this second time, how long was he in that position? A: Quite long, Ma 'am xxx.[11] [Third rape] [Q]: x x x What date was that third incident? A: October 2007 Ma'am. x x x Q: After you were made to lie down, what did your father exactly do? A: He took off my clothes. Q: And after taking off your clothes, what happened next? A: He also took off his clothes. Q: So after he took off his clothes, what did he do next? A: He went on top of me again. Q: So after he went on top of you, what did he actually do? A: He already inserted his penis into my vagina, Ma 'am xxx.[12] The CA also found that AAA was telling the truth when she declared that her father raped her on three separate occasions. The rule is that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.[13] And after our own examination of AAA's testimony, we find no reason to disagree with the RTC and CA in finding AAA as a credible witness.
	GR No. 192284 2015-03-11	ALEX TIONCO Y ORTEGA v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The well-established rule is "that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings."[15] "[T]he determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."[16] Here, there is no compelling reason to deviate from the findings of both the trial and appellate courts as explained hereunder.
	GR No. 207635 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We uphold the penalties imposed by the CA as they are within the range of the penalties provided for under Sections 5[68] and 11(3)[69] of R.A. 9165, as well as the prevailing jurisprudence in similar cases.[70]
	GR No. 200507 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. PETER LINDA Y GEROLAGA PEREZ, J.
Settled are the rule that "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings,"[16] and that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."[17]
	GR No. 195777 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND CASTRO Y LAPENA PEREZ, J.
Thus, we have said, time and again, that "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings."[23] Also, "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."[24]
	GR No. 194721 2012-08-15	PEOPLE v. JOHN BRIAN AMARILLO Y MAPA PEREZ, J.
As to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, we hold, as we have done time and again, that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect"[27] and that "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings."[28]
	GR No. 182059 2012-07-04	PEOPLE v. CAMILO D. NICART PEREZ, J.
Time and again, we hold that the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings."[16] Likewise basic is the rule that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."[17]
	GR No. 186141 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JESUSA FIGUEROA Y CORONADO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant's contention is unmeritorious. It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the the law enforcers' failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Thus, in People v. Berdadero,[13] the Court noted that Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This Court consequently held that "this silence [cannot] be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible."[14] The same conclusion was reached by this Court in People v. Roa,[15] People v. Mantalaba[16] and People v. Sabadlab.[17]