Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO NAVIDA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 178301 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO 'BOTONG' MALIBIRAN ACCUSED AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While the defense may have presented Security Guard Romulo to refute the testimony of Oswaldo, it is settled that when credibility is in issue, the Supreme Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court, considering that it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment during trial.[25] Thus, in the absence of any palpable error, this Court defers to the trials court's impression and conclusion that, as between Oswaldo and Romulo, the former's testimony deserved more weight and credence.
	GR No. 167755 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Appellant claims that the testimony of AAA is incredible and inconsistent. However, it is settled that when credibility is in issue, the Supreme Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court considering that it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment during trial.[25] In the instant case, the Court finds nothing on record to justify a departure from the findings of the trial court. The testimony of AAA leaves no doubt that appellant had in fact raped her, to wit: x x x x
	GR NO. 172324 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Proceeding now to the appropriate penalty, it must be noted that the penalty for the crime of attempted rape with homicide is "reclusion perpetua to death." Since the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, then for the purpose of determining the imposable penalty, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code must be considered.[32] It provides in part:1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
	GR Nos. 144989-90 2003-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOVITO MANALO PANGANIBAN, J.
In a prosecution for rape, the evaluation of the evidence presented during the trial ultimately revolves around the credibility of the complaining witness.[28] And when credibility is in issue, it is well-settled that this Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court. Having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment during trial, it was in a better position to decide the question.[29]
	GR Nos. 137037-38 2002-08-05	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO ROMERO QUISUMBING, J.
fetched. No mother in her right mind would put to trial the honor of her own daughter and of her family if the charge were untrue.[56] Neither would a young daughter like Marilou be willing to undergo the travails of a prosecution for rape simply to be with her mother who would eventually send her away as a housemaid. Complainant would only do so, in our view, because she had been abused and wanted nothing
	GR Nos. 137969-71 2001-08-15	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL SALALIMA Y GARCIA QUISUMBING, J.
But as consistently held by this Court in previous cases, the aforequoted seven new attendant circumstances partake the nature of special qualifying circumstances. Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded.[16] Moreover, under the first circumstance, the minority of the victim and the offender's relationship to the victim must be taken together and constitute only one special qualifying circumstance. Both must be alleged in the complaint or the information and duly proved by the quantum of proof in criminal cases to justify the imposition of the mandatory death penalty. Thus, even if the victim is below eighteen years of age and the offender is her parent or relative, but these facts are not alleged in the information, or that only one is so alleged, their proof as such by evidence offered during the trial cannot sanction the imposition of the penalty.[17]
	GR No. 123542 2001-06-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO BULOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
It is doctrinally settled that the lone testimony of the rape victim herself is competent to establish guilt, where the same is found to be credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] This is because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony.[23] The Court also considers that ordinarily, no woman would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and testify to the details of her ordeal were it not but a response to the compelling need to seek and obtain justice.[24] There is nothing in this case to indicate that Nancy Cordero, an 18-year old cook and house helper, would have any motive to falsely implicate the accused, in the process admitting to the stain to her modesty and honor, and losing her humble means of employment; the logical conclusion is that her testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.