This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The petition being a petition for review, the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to reviewing questions of law.[11] The issues ultimately focus on the credibility of witnesses and whether the evidence for the prosecution - as opposed to petitioner's alibi - is sufficient to warrant petitioner's conviction for commission of the crime of Estafa as alleged in the Information. The core issue being raised by accused-appellant is essentially a factual issue. It is well-settled in criminal jurisprudence that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering it was in a better position to settle such issue.[12] The issue concerning the credibility of witnesses has almost always been considered to be a matter that is best addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court. Its vantage point over that of an appellate court in that determination can hardly be doubted. Indeed, the trial court has the advantage of hearing the witness and observing his conduct during trial, circumstances which carry a great weight in appreciating his credibility.[13] | |||||
|
2006-03-14 |
|||||
| Generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code. When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law.[8] Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says they are forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated.[9] Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy.[10] | |||||
|
2005-03-04 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner admitted having issued the three dishonored checks for value. Her purpose was to encash them. She also admitted that at the time she issued the checks, she was aware that she had only P1,000.00 in her account with the Equitable Bank and that her BPI account was already closed. Significantly, what Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 penalizes is the issuance of a bouncing check. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes, but the act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment.[11] The purpose for which the check was issued and the terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial. What is primordial is that the issued checks were worthless and the fact of worthlessness was known to the petitioner at the time of their issuance, as in this case. This is because under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.[12] | |||||
|
2000-06-30 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Whether petitioner indeed issued the disputed checks to complainant in payment of outstanding obligations, or whether it was complainant who procured the checks from petitioner's secretary only to be shown to potential investors is a factual question involving as it does the credibility of witnesses. It is well-settled that where the issue is the credibility of witnesses the appellate court will not generally disturb the findings of the lower court considering that it is in a better position to settle that issue. Verily, the trial court has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their conduct during the trial, which circumstances carry great weight in assessing their credibility. We see no reason to overturn the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals in giving credence to the testimony of complainant. The testimony of a lone witness when credible and trustworthy, as in this case, is sufficient to convict.[28] | |||||