Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOSE LOMBOY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 130846 2001-10-23	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PAMILAR Y REVOLIO QUISUMBING, J.
Well-established is the principle that factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon the reviewing or appellate court and its evaluation regarding the credibility of witnesses are given great weight and respect unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.[32] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that particularly falls within the authority of the trial court[33] as it had the opportunity to observe closely their conduct and demeanor on the stand.[34]
	GR No. 128095 2001-01-19	MANUEL HUANG CHUA v. PEOPLE PARDO, J.
Sixth, the gate pass supposedly issued to Nestor on the 16th of October likewise does not establish the presence of the truck or Manuel's participation in the crime. The gate pass was tampered. Originally, it was dated "October 15", but it was altered to show that it was issued not on the 15th, but on the 16th. While the prosecution tried to explain the alteration by stating that it was an innocent mistake on the part of Annabelle Go,[34] we cannot ignore the fact that Nestor categorically stated that the gate pass was actually issued to him on the 15th, not on the 16th of October.[35] We have held consistently that when a circumstance is capable of two interpretations, one consistent with accused's guilt, and one with his innocence, the latter must prevail.[36]
	GR Nos. 111734-35 2000-06-16	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO A. MALAPAYON PARDO, J.
Unlike Macario, Rafael sufficiently explained his presence at the safe house. His justification was not rebutted by the prosecution. Failure of the prosecution to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence entitles the accused-appellant to an acquittal.[55] Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.[56] Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy.[57] When a circumstance is capable of two interpretations, one consistent with the accused's guilt, and one with his innocence, the latter must prevail.[58]