This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We emphasize at the outset the well-settled doctrine that an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. An appeal therefore empowers, and even obligates, the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment even if these errors have not been raised. It is likewise settled that when an accused appeals, he opens the whole case for a new trial.[47] | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| the trial court ordinarily will not be considered by the appellate court, as such cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[22] Nonetheless, when an accused appeals, he re-opens the whole case[23] and if only to serve the interests of substantial justice, we shall pause to consider appellant's "sweetheart defense." In many a rape case, the defense that the rapist and the victim are lovers is often raised, but is also often struck down for want of sufficient and convincing proof. Having invoked the positive defense of a romantic relationship with the victim, appellant bears the burden of | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The well-settled rule is that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court[14] since the latter is in a better position to decide this issue. [15] However, this rule is not absolute. It is subject to exceptions. One concerns a situation where the judge who penned the decision did not personally hear the evidence for the prosecution.[16] In the present case, Judge David Alfeche, Jr., the ponente, only inherited this case from Judge Amelita K. Del Rosario who conducted the trial and heard the witnesses testify. | |||||
|
2000-07-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Denial, which was invoked by appellant, is a weak defense. Conviction, however, rests on the strength of the prosecution's own evidence, never on the weakness or even absence of that for the defense.[30] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The trial court observed the demeanor of the witnesses for the prosecution and for the defense, and believed the former whose testimonies were candid, straightforward and bore the earmarks of truth while characterizing the latter as preposterous and unbelievable.[16] In criminal jurisprudence, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court[17] and the Court will respect these findings considering that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[18] Of course, the rule admits of certain exceptions: (a) when patent inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (b) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.[19] But in this case, neither exception can be found, and the Court is not precluded from making its own assessment of the probative value of the testimony of the witnesses on the basis of the transcript of stenographic notes thereof.[20] We have carefully reviewed the records and found no reason to deviate from the conclusions drawn by the trial court; hence, they must prevail. | |||||