Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FAUSTINO CAMPOS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 150251 2007-11-23	CAYETANO CAPANGPANGAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
Before the CA was the sole issue of credibility of witnesses. In affirming the trial court's findings, the CA ruled that petitioner has not given cogent and weighty reasons for the appellate court to abandon the findings of the trial court. According to the CA, it was bound by the findings of the trial court unless it was shown that the RTC overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.[7]
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At the risk of sounding trite, it must be borne in mind that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter that is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this respect, unless it is shown that it has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.[36] The Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court in this case.
	GR No. 130949 2001-04-04	PEOPLE v. AUGUSTO BUENVIAJE Y REYES PARDO, J.
"The accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things."[22] As found by the trial court, the offended party testified in a manner "credible, natural and convincing consonant with the course of normal behavior."[23]
	GR Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 2001-03-07	PEOPLE v. CONRADO SALADINO Y DINGLE BELLOSILLO, J.
In the three (3) cases of simple rape, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count is upheld, consistent with current jurisprudence.[23] The award of P30,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape is increased to P50,000.00 also consistent with jurisprudence.[24] In addition, an award of P30,000.00 in exemplary damages is also imposed, the relationship between the sex offender and his victim being aggravating.[25] In the case of attempted rape the P30,000.00 award as moral damages is reduced to P15,000.00.[26] The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is removed, there being no legal basis therefor.
	GR Nos. 137185-86 2001-02-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO BELLOSILLO, J.
In People v. Campos[12] where the victims were only ten (10) and eleven (11) years old when they testified before the trial court, this Court held that at such tender age they were still unfamiliar with and naive in the ways of the world that it was quite unbelievable that they could fabricate such a sordid story of personal defloration;[13] besides, the defense failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the victims to file serious charges of rape against the accused.[14] The same holds true in the present case. What Mercelinda and Angelica testified to was the plain and simple truth.
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter that is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this respect, unless it shown that it has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.[55] The Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court in this case.