This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The correctness of the finding of the RTC and the Commissioners that dividing Alicia's estate would be prejudicial to the parties cannot be passed upon by the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari. Factual questions are not within the province of a petition for certiorari. There is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. As to whether the court a quo decided the question wrongly is immaterial in a petition for certiorari. It is a legal presumption that findings of fact of a trial court carry great weight and are entitled to respect on appeal, absent any strong and cogent reason to the contrary, since it is in a better position to decide the question of credibility of witnesses.[52] | |||||
|
2003-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Pati's failure to resurface after the forcible taking does not bar conviction for the crime of kidnapping. In People v. Bernal,[13] where the victim also disappeared after the forcible taking, the Court held:The Court notes that up to this day, neither the victim nor his body has been found. This, however, does not preclude the Court from ruling on the merits of the case. In kidnapping, what is important is to determine and prove the fact of seizure, and the subsequent disappearance of the victim will not exonerate an accused from prosecution therefor. Otherwise, kidnappers can easily avoid punishment by the simple expedient of disposing of their victims' bodies. (Emphasis supplied) At the time the trial court decided this case, the victim was still missing. Indeed, his kidnapping had far exceeded three days. Considering the circumstances, it is safe to assume that Pati Panindigan is already dead since he has disappeared for more than eight years.[14] Appellant's motive is not even relevant. Motive is not an element of the crime of kidnapping.[15] | |||||