Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CRISANTO DIGMA Y UBAY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 186379 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO LAZARO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant Bienvenido guilty of the charge. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[38] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[39] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[40] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[41]
	GR No. 184598 2009-06-23	PEOPLE v. JULIO MANALILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Courts finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[47] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to t he sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain whether they are telling the truth or not.[48] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[49] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed byt the appellant court.[50]
	GR No. 172470 2008-04-08	PEOPLE v. SAMMY RAMOS Y DALERE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC, as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[56] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[57] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[58] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[59]
	GR NO. 170849 2007-03-07	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MORAN JR. Y GORDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[16] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[17] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[18] In the case under consideration, this Court finds that the trial court as well as the Court of Appeals committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charge.
	GR No. 130522 2001-02-15	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO PAGDAYAWON PER CURIAM
'As this Court had occasion to rule in People vs. Baylon (L-35785, 29 May 1974, 57 SCRA 114), where the victims are of tender years, "there is marked receptivity on its part to lend credence to their version of what transpired," a matter that is not to be wondered at, since the State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority are not yet able to fully protect themselves'."[9] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not[10]. We find no reason to deviate from the general rule that factual findings of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, as they are not clearly arbitrary or unfounded[11].