Lawyerly

GR No. 206095

2013-11-25

MENDOZA, J.

In People v. Arpon,[26] the Court established the guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, as follows: 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.

GR No. 201103

2013-09-25

PEOPLE v. JIMMY CEDENIO Y PERALTA

REYES, J.

Moreover, Cedenio's defense of alibi is an inherently weak defense that is easy to fabricate.[11] Cedenio failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[12] The CA noted that Cedenio's job gave him mobility and it was easy for him to go home and commit the crime; thus, his alibi cannot prosper.[13]

GR No. 183091

2013-06-19

PEOPLE v. BERNESTO DE LA CRUZ

SERENO, C.J.

With respect to the appellant's contention that the witnesses presented were not credible, we reiterate the jurisprudential principle affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses especially if the factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The trial judge can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying.[20]

GR No. 188849

2013-02-13

PEOPLE v. JONATHAN 'UTO' VELOSO Y RAMA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We have often reiterated the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses. The trial judge is the one who hears the testimony of the witnesses presented firsthand and sees their demeanor and body language. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if the witnesses are telling the truth being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.[18] We also have stated that: Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals].[19] (Citation omitted, emphasis added.)

GR No. 201447

2013-01-09

PEOPLE v. ANASTACIO BROCA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

For the qualified rape of his daughter AAA, the Court of Appeals was correct in imposing upon Amistoso the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility of parole, in lieu of the death penalty, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346;[40] and ordering Amistoso to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The Court adds that Amistoso is liable to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision.[41]

GR No. 187732

2012-11-28

PEOPLE v. FELIX MORANTE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We reiterate the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses. In People v. Arpon,[26] we stated: [W]hen the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals]. (Citation omitted, emphases added.)

GR No. 199264

2012-10-24

PEOPLE v. NOEL T. LAURINO

REYES, J.

We also uphold the rulings of the RTC and the CA that Laurino's defense of alibi deserves scant consideration. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time when the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[12] In this case, Laurino failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene on May 11, 2002. Both the RTC and the CA even observed that Laurino claimed to be then merely two (2) to five (5) kilometers away from the crime scene.

GR No. 194608

2012-07-09

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BARAOIL

REYES, J.

The accused-appellant's defense of alibi deserves scant consideration. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused-appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Since alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated, it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the crime.[14]

GR No. 194581

2012-07-02

PEOPLE v. DANILO MIRASOL AGUSTIN

REYES, J.

Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. [S]ince alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated, it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the crime.[29] (Citation omitted)

GR No. 188978

2012-06-13

PEOPLE v. MARCIAL BAYRANTE Y BOAQUINA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In People v. Arpon,[21] we discussed the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses: Time and again, the Court has held that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals].[22]

	GR No. 206095 2013-11-25	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARCIA Y PADIERNOS MENDOZA, J.
In People v. Arpon,[26] the Court established the guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, as follows: 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
	GR No. 201103 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. JIMMY CEDENIO Y PERALTA REYES, J.
Moreover, Cedenio's defense of alibi is an inherently weak defense that is easy to fabricate.[11] Cedenio failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[12] The CA noted that Cedenio's job gave him mobility and it was easy for him to go home and commit the crime; thus, his alibi cannot prosper.[13]
	GR No. 183091 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. BERNESTO DE LA CRUZ SERENO, C.J.
With respect to the appellant's contention that the witnesses presented were not credible, we reiterate the jurisprudential principle affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses especially if the factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The trial judge can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying.[20]
	GR No. 188849 2013-02-13	PEOPLE v. JONATHAN 'UTO' VELOSO Y RAMA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We have often reiterated the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses. The trial judge is the one who hears the testimony of the witnesses presented firsthand and sees their demeanor and body language. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if the witnesses are telling the truth being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.[18] We also have stated that: Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals].[19] (Citation omitted, emphasis added.)
	GR No. 201447 2013-01-09	PEOPLE v. ANASTACIO BROCA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For the qualified rape of his daughter AAA, the Court of Appeals was correct in imposing upon Amistoso the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility of parole, in lieu of the death penalty, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346;[40] and ordering Amistoso to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The Court adds that Amistoso is liable to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision.[41]
	GR No. 187732 2012-11-28	PEOPLE v. FELIX MORANTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We reiterate the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses. In People v. Arpon,[26] we stated: [W]hen the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals]. (Citation omitted, emphases added.)
	GR No. 199264 2012-10-24	PEOPLE v. NOEL T. LAURINO REYES, J.
We also uphold the rulings of the RTC and the CA that Laurino's defense of alibi deserves scant consideration. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time when the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[12] In this case, Laurino failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene on May 11, 2002. Both the RTC and the CA even observed that Laurino claimed to be then merely two (2) to five (5) kilometers away from the crime scene.
	GR No. 194608 2012-07-09	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BARAOIL REYES, J.
The accused-appellant's defense of alibi deserves scant consideration. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused-appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Since alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated, it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the crime.[14]
	GR No. 194581 2012-07-02	PEOPLE v. DANILO MIRASOL AGUSTIN REYES, J.
Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. [S]ince alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated, it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the crime.[29] (Citation omitted)
	GR No. 188978 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. MARCIAL BAYRANTE Y BOAQUINA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Arpon,[21] we discussed the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses: Time and again, the Court has held that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals].[22]

PEOPLE v. HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA