Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

XERXES ADZUARA Y DOTIMAS v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 147437 2009-05-08	LARRY V. CAMINOS v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
until it is reasonably safe to proceed.[77] Thus, in Adzuara v. Court of Appeals,[78] it was established that a motorist crossing a thru-stop street has the right of way over the one making a turn; but if the person making the turn has already negotiated half of the turn and is almost on the other side so that he is already visible to the person on the thru-street, he is bound to give way to the former.
	GR NO. 153076 2007-06-21	LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL v. MICHAEL RAYMOND ANGALA CARPIO, J.
The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss.[16] In this case, Deocampo had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. Since Deocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he had full control of the situation since he was in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him.[17] Deocampo had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him.[18] A U-turn is done at a much slower speed to avoid skidding and overturning, compared to running straight ahead.[19] Deocampo could have avoided the vehicle if he was not driving very fast while following the pick-up. Deocampo was not only driving fast, he also admitted that he did not step on the brakes even upon seeing the pick-up. He only stepped on the brakes after the collision.
	GR No. 126515 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. ASSEMBLYMAN ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR PARDO, J.
As regards the claim that the testimony of prosecution witness Luna Sanchez was replete with inconsistencies and contradictions, hence should not be believed, we rule that minor inconsistencies, far from detracting from the veracity of the testimony, enhance the credibility of the witness, for they remove any suspicion that his testimony was contrived or rehearsed.[75] Moreover, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of testimony are generally not disturbed on appeal since "significant focus is held to lie on the deportment of, as well as the peculiar manner in which the declaration is made by the witness in open court.[76]