Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DIONE PALOMAR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 202060 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BANZUELA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We agree with the lower courts that Banzuela's defense of alibi hardly deserves credit. Such defense is one of the weakest not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut.[57] Thus, for alibi to succeed as a defense, the following must be established by clear and convincing evidence: The accused's presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense; and
	GR Nos. 173090-91 2011-09-07	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. RODOLFO T. TIU AND VICTORIA N. TIU LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Although the Credit Line Agreement between the spouses Tiu and Union Bank was entered into on November 21, 1995,[65] when the agreement to pay in foreign currency was still considered void under Republic Act No. 529, the actual loans,[66] as shown in the promissory notes, were taken out from September 22, 1997 to March 26, 1998, during which time Republic Act No. 8183 was already in effect. In United Coconut Planters Bank v. Beluso,[67] we held that: [O]pening a credit line does not create a credit transaction of loan or mutuum, since the former is merely a preparatory contract to the contract of loan or mutuum. Under such credit line, the bank is merely obliged, for the considerations specified therefor, to lend to the other party amounts not exceeding the limit provided. The credit transaction thus occurred not when the credit line was opened, but rather when the credit line was availed of. x x x.[68]
	GR No. 181035 2011-07-04	PEOPLE v. NOEL DION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has time and again held that alibi is one of the weakest defenses, not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check out or rebut. [50]
	GR No. 134604 2003-08-28	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO HUGO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)[23] supports the trial court's finding and conclusion that appellants Ernesto, Rudy, and Lorenzo conspired to kill Remegio. The records reveal that (a) the appellants arrived at the scene of the crime together; (b) moments later, appellant Ernesto, who was then armed with a bolo, suddenly hacked Remegio; (c) after a while, appellants Rudy and Lorenzo took turns in hacking Remegio with a bolo; and (d) all together the appellants fled from the scene of the crime. The OSG asserts that the seeming discrepancy alluded to by the appellants could not overcome Joel's positive identification pointing to them as perpetrators of the crime. That Joel omitted to mention the names of Rudy and Lorenzo in his affidavit is inconsequential, for affidavits are considered "almost always incomplete and inaccurate," as recognized by this Court in People v. Palomar.[24]