This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that "the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This dictum would be more true if the findings were affirmed by the CA, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, these findings are generally binding upon this Court."[20] "The justification for this is that [the] trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses by virtue of its firsthand observation of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses under grilling examination."[21] While jurisprudence admits of exceptions to this principle, no such exception attends the present case. | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Entrenched in jurisprudence is the dictum that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.[25] As held in People v. Dimaano:[26] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As exception to the rule, the only time a reviewing court is not bound by the trial court's assessment of credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked which, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case.[10] With this exception as basis we reviewed the records for any indication of arbitrariness or clear oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight that can warrant a reversal of the findings of the courts a quo. We found none. | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The mistake, however, will not exonerate Caoile. In the first place, he did not even raise this as an objection. More importantly, none of his rights, particularly that of to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,[20] was violated. Although the Amended Informations stated that he was being charged with the crime of rape of a demented person under paragraph 1(d), it also stated that his victim was "a person with a mental age of seven (7) years old." Elucidating on the foregoing, this Court, in People v. Valdez,[21] held: For [a] complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. | |||||