Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JESUS DEUNIDA Y ENRIQUEZ

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 191185 2016-02-01	GUILBEMER FRANCO v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
The prosecution contends, meanwhile, that the RTC's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility may no longer be questioned at this stage.[53] The Court is not unmindful of the rule that the assignment of value and weight to the testimony of a witness is best left to the discretion of the RTC. But an exception to that rule shall be applied in this ease where certain facts of substance and value, if considered, may affect the result.[54] In Lejano v. People,[55] the Court stated:A judge must keep an open mind. He must guard against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the accused's claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and unequivocally, "He did it!" without blinking an eye.[56]
	GR No. 191068 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. CHRIS CORPUZ Y BASBAS PEREZ, J.
Indeed, it is quite puzzling why the appellant took flight after the shooting incident and returned only after six (6) years, until he was finally arrested in 2006.[23] As we held in the case of People v. Deunida,[24] flight of an accused from the scene of the crime removes any remaining shred of doubt on his guilt.
	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
There is simply no double jeopardy when the subsequent information charges another and different offense, although arising from the same act or set of acts.[33] Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is the prosecution for the same offense.
	GR No. 189365 2011-10-12	JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
On 09 June 2009, the OSG filed its Comment[29] on the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner Zafra. It moved for the denial of her Motion for Reconsideration and prayed that the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105199 be affirmed.
	GR No. 187074 2009-10-13	PEOPLE v. ALLAN DEL PRADO Y CAHUSAY PERALTA, J.
Furthermore, this Court has held in a long line of cases that the trial court's determination of the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[8] This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. It can thus more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[9]