This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-09-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, Causing's too-literal understanding of transfer should not hold sway because the provisions involved here were criminal in nature. Mayor Biron was sought to be charged with an election offense punishable under Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.[36] It is a basic rule of statutory construction that penal statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused. Every reasonable doubt must then be resolved in favor of the accused.[37] This means that the courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law that are not clearly embraced by it. In short, no act can be pronounced criminal unless it is clearly made so by statute prior to its commission (nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege). So, too, no person who is not clearly within the terms of a statute can be brought within them. | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We likewise held in People v. Deleverio that:[29] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old." The victim's relationship with appellant, however, is not among the qualifying circumstances of relationships covered by the law. Article 266-B requires that "the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." Conformably with the principle of exclusio unius est exclusio alterius, the relationship of the offender, as being just a step-grandfather of the victim, cannot be deemed embraced by the enumeration.[27] Furthermore, there is no evidence submitted that appellant is legally married to the victim's grandmother. | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Well established is the rule that, where the culpability or innocence of an accused hinges on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimony, findings of the trial court are given the highest respect. For it is the trial judge who has the advantage of personally observing the conduct and demeanor of declarants, an opportunity not available to an appellate court.[24] | |||||
|
2001-09-07 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for rape, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single most important issue to hurdle.[27] | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic to point out, furthermore, that in an appeal, where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are entitled to and given the highest degree of respect.[17] Moreover, in People v. Reynaldo, we reiterated the principle that:The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh the testimony of a witness in the light of his demeanor, conduct and attitude as he testified, and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between the true and the false.[18] There are other reasons why the eyewitness testimony of SG Bobis was given full faith and credit. SG Bobis, a mere security guard, realized he was no match to appellants Antonio and SPO4 Nieto. The former, a wealthy businessman, is known as an intimate friend of people in power. Appellant Antonio admitted in court that he surrendered himself and his gun to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, who was his good friend. Hours later, he went to see then Vice President Joseph Estrada in Tagaytay City so he (Antonio) could tell his friend, the Vice President, what happened in his own words.[19] | |||||