Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLLY OBELLO Y PROQUITO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 164081 2008-04-16	MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILS. CORPORATION v. ROLANDO SIMON TINGA, J,
We find substantial evidence to support respondents' dismissal. True, the core of petitioner's decision to dismiss respondents is the statements of the spouses Siena. However, testimonies are to be weighed, not numbered; thus it has been said that a finding of guilt may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness when the tribunal finds such testimony positive and credible.[22]
	GR NO. 161970 2006-06-30	DUNDEE A. VIERNES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
While the rule is settled that the conviction of an accused may be based on the testimony of one witness alone, provided it is positive and credible, testimonies being weighed, not numbered,[46] Josefina's uncorroborated testimony is, as shown above, tainted with inconsistencies on material points to thus lead this Court to discredit it and uphold the constitutional presumption of innocence of petitioner.
	GR NO. 143404 2005-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The general rule is that the factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, as well as the conclusions of the trial court based on its factual findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially if such findings are affirmed by the CA. This is so because the trial court is able to observe at close range the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testify.[25] However, the general rule does not apply if the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances which, if considered, will warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[26]
	GR No. 136844 2002-08-01	PEOPLE v. SPO1 RODOLFO CONCEPCION Y PERALTA QUISUMBING, J.
without need of any evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[32] As for moral damages, the amount should be reduced to P50,000 also in accordance with existing jurisprudence.[33] The award of P10,000 as attorney's fees is sufficient and justified. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Tarlac, Branch 65, in Criminal Case No. 9776, convicting appellant Rodolfo Concepcion of the crime of murder, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is found guilty of the crime of
	GR No. 127843 2000-12-15	PEOPLE v. HERMAN D. BATO PARDO, J.
We affirm the trial court's award of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity for death. This can be awarded without need of proof other than the death of the victim.[47] The award is automatically granted upon proof of commission of the offense.[48]
	GR Nos. 125331 2000-11-23	PEOPLE v. MERLINDO BELAJE KAPUNAN, J.
The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 as such award is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence other than the fact of commission of the crime.[28] It also correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages under Art. 2219 (1) of the Civil Code, which the court may award in criminal cases in the exercise of its discretion.[29] Victoria Caysido's claim that she suffered pain as a result of her husband's death[30] is sufficient basis for such an award. Her mental, physical and psychological sufferings that constitute the bases for moral damages may be assumed as the result of the untimely demise of her husband. There is no need for her to go through a "testimonial charade"[31] detailing how she endured such sufferings.
	GR No. 123095 2000-07-06	PEOPLE v. EFREN MINDANAO Y GUMABAO PARDO, J.
We grant an award of civil indemnity, in the amount of P50,000.00, automatically to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the fact of commission of the crime.[24]
	GR No. 120706 2000-01-31	RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. CA AND SPS. NESTOR NICOLAS AND ALLEM NICOLAS BELLOSILLO, J.
There are other inconsistencies pointed out by petitioner in the testimonial evidence of private respondents but these are not of such significance as to alter the finding of facts of the lower court. Minor inconsistencies even guarantee truthfulness and candor, for they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[9] Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses with on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their testimonies.[10]