This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is a well-entrenched doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[37] The trial court has the singular opportunity to observe the witnesses "through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sign, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien."[38] | |||||
|
2009-04-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Minor transgressions of the law (i.e., conviction for speeding)[62] Illegal recruitment[63] Slight physical injuries and carrying of deadly weapon (Illegal possession of firearms)[64] 4. Indirect Contempt[65] | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The constitutional right of the accused to be heard on his defense is inviolate. No court of justice under our system of government has the power to deprive him of that right.[22] In the case at bar, however, although there is nothing in the records to show that the trial court advised appellant on the repercussions of his waiver to present evidence in his own defense, this lapse did not work to effectively vacate the findings of guilt made by the trial court because appellant's guilt for the crime of statutory rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in People v. Nuñez,[23] the Court upheld the conviction of the accused despite procedural defects, i.e., a plea of guilt improvidently made, inasmuch as the conviction was supported by adequate evidence on record. | |||||
|
2003-03-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Our criminal rules of procedure strictly provide the step-by- step formula to be followed by courts in cases punishable by death. The reason for this is to ensure that the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is preserved and the State makes no mistake in taking life and liberty except that of the guilty. Hence, any deviation from the regular course of trial should always take into consideration that such a different or extraordinary approach has been undertaken voluntarily and intelligently. For otherwise, as in the instant case, denial of due process can be successfully invoked since no valid waiver of rights has been made.[8] | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Appellants put up the defenses of denial and alibi. Such defenses, however, cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies, detailing how appellants collectively and individually perpetrated the crime.[29] Their alibi cannot prosper, because they failed to prove the physical impossibility of their presence at the scene of the crime around the time of the stabbing incident.[30] Undisputed is the fact that they and their co-accused, who were residents of Ermin Garcia Street, drank beer at the sari-sari store that night, contrary to their protestations that they were then at home sleeping. Clearly, in the case at bar, the defense miserably failed to negate their presence at the situs of the crime or its immediate vicinity during its commission. | |||||