This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The element of publication was also proven. "Publication, in the law of libel, means the making of the defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written."[24] On the basis of the evidence on record and as found by the Sandiganbayan, there is no dispute that copies of the memorandum containing the defamatory remarks were circulated to all the regional offices of the HPP. Evidence also shows that petitioner allowed the distribution of the subject memorandum and even read the contents thereof before a gathering at a meeting attended by more or less 24 participants thereat. | |||||
|
2009-04-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion temporal or lower, all appeals to this Court may be taken by filing a petition for review on certiorari, raising only questions of law.[12] It is evident from this petition that no question of law is proffered by petitioners. The principal issue involved is the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It bears stressing that in criminal cases, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge. And when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[13] The rationale of this rule lies on the fact that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most commonly performed by the trial judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before his sala, as he had personally heard them and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[14] The findings of fact made by the trial court were substantially supported by evidence on record. Therefore, we are constrained not to disturb its factual findings. | |||||