Lawyerly

GR No. 169533

2013-03-20

BERSAMIN, J.

The petitioner's right to liberty is in jeopardy. He may be entirely deprived of such birthright without due process of law unless we shunt aside the rigidity of the rules of procedure and review his case. Hence, we treat this recourse as an appeal timely brought to the Court. Consonant with the basic rule in criminal procedure that an appeal opens the whole case for review, we should deem it our duty to correct errors in the appealed judgment, whether assigned or not.[17]

GR No. 169548

2010-03-15

TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MANUEL A. DAVID

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In any event, we reiterate the well-entrenched rule that the factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[31] We are mandated to accord great weight to the findings of the RTC, particularly as regards its assessment of the credibility of witnesses[32] since it is the trial court judge who is in a position to observe and examine the witnesses first hand.[33] Even after a careful and independent scrutiny of the records, we find no cogent reason to depart from the rulings of the courts below.[34]

GR No. 184172

2009-05-08

PEOPLE v. LUIS ANTONIO GARCHITORENA

TINGA, J.

Indeed, great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court had overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.[13] After a careful scrutiny of the records, this Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the rulings of the courts below.

GR No. 157723

2009-04-30

ROMEO SAYOC Y AQUINO v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

Petitioners' weak denial, especially when uncorroborated, cannot overcome the positive identification of them by the prosecution witnesses. As between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence and weight.[15] As found by the trial court, Jaen and the police officer were able to identify the petitioners, as among those who staged the robbery inside the bus, thus:Based on the testimonies of the complainant and PO1 Remedios Terte, the accused were clearly and positively identified as the three men who staged the robbery/ hold-up inside the California bus. It was Ricardo Santos who announced the hold-up after which he pointed a knife at the neck of the complainant while Teodoro Almadin divested him of his jewelry. Romeo Sayoc held everyone at bay by threatening to explode a hand grenade if anyone moved.[16]

GR No. 174371

2008-12-11

PEOPLE v. WARREN DELA CRUZ Y FRANCISCO

REYES, R.T., J.

Self-serving denial cannot overthrow the positive identification that appellant was one of the perpetrators of the crime.[44] In Ferrer v. People,[45] this Court reiterated the longstanding doctrine that denial -

GR No. 181594

2008-08-28

PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, however, this Court finds that a modification needs to be made. It is our obligation to correct said error, albeit not assigned as such, as may be found in the judgment appealed from, since an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review.[51]

GR No. 178204

2008-08-20

PEOPLE v. MARCOS GANIGAN

TINGA, J,

Well-settled is the doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.[33] In the present case, we find no reason to depart from the rule.

GR No. 178546

2008-04-30

PEOPLE v. MUKIM ELING Y MAÑALAC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant assails the full faith and credit given to the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, especially on the testimony of Sakandal. Appellant avers that Sakandal's testimony is marred by inconsistencies considering that he initially stated in categorical terms that he was sitting beside the victim when the latter was shot from behind. Sakandal later testified that he was passing behind the nipa hut where the appellant was sleeping when he saw the latter shoot the victim. We have consistently ruled that on matters involving the credibility of witnesses, the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses since it has observed firsthand their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[33] The trial court has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while on the stand, it can discern whether or not they are telling the truth.[34] The unbending jurisprudence is that its findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[35] It is well to remind appellant that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bar, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[36] The jurisprudential doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.[37] There are no cogent reasons to depart from the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The alleged inconsistency in the testimony of Sakandal does not negate his eyewitness account that he saw appellant shoot the victim. Even then, witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time.[38] Although there may be inconsistencies in minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses, where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant.[39] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the prosecution's case as they tend to erase suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed, thereby negating any misgivings that the same were perjured.[40] Similarly, we note that the eyewitness Sakandal, who is appellant's brother, was shown to have no ill motive to falsely testify against the appellant. In fact, from the mouth of the appellant himself, it was confirmed that prior to the incident, he was in good relationship with his brother, Sakandal. Moreover, appellant also testified that they were very close to each other, and that they did not have any misunderstanding.[41] The same was also true with eyewitness Kaluh who testified against him. Kaluh was five arms' length away from the scene of the crime. Indeed, the testimonies of Sakandal and Kaluh are a positive identification of appellant as the assailant. These constitute direct evidence.[42] Sakandal and Kaluh are eyewitnesses to the very act of the commission of the crime and positively identified the appellant as the offender.

GR NO. 158053

2007-06-21

EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to the damages awarded by the RTC, however, the Court finds that certain modifications need to be made. While not assigned as errors, it is the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, since an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review.[66]

GR No. 167683

2007-06-08

SERGIO BENINSIG v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

A: At the chest, ma'am.[23] Petitioner offers no convincing reason or argument that would dissuade us from not accepting the credibility of witness Federico's testimony. Thus, we are obliged to apply the doctrinal rule that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses.[24]

GR NO. 176158

2007-03-27

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABINAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Although Policarpio testified that he was together with the appellant before the victim was killed, which testimony allegedly runs contrary to the declaration of Maribel that Policarpio and the victim were together before the incident, the same is only a minor inconsistency which does not detract from the fact that it was appellant who killed Eleuterio. Besides, witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time. This is even more true if they are called to testify on details of a harrowing and frightening event which unfolded before their eyes.[9] Thus, even if witnesses may have erred in some aspects of their testimonies, the same do not necessarily impair their testimonies nor corrode their credibility.[10]

GR NO. 174194

2007-03-20

PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Moreover, even granting that Libao erred in identifying the weapon used by the appellant as double-bladed knife, vis-à-vis the medical findings that the said victims died of wounds possibly caused by a single-bladed instrument, it is a settled rule that witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. Even if a witness may have erred in some aspects of his/her testimony, the same does not necessarily impair his/her testimony nor corrode his/her credibility. Where a part of the testimony of a witness runs counter to the medical evidence submitted, it is within the sound discretion of the court to determine which portions of the testimony to reject as false and which to consider worthy of belief.[38]

	GR No. 169533 2013-03-20	GEORGE BONGALON v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner's right to liberty is in jeopardy. He may be entirely deprived of such birthright without due process of law unless we shunt aside the rigidity of the rules of procedure and review his case. Hence, we treat this recourse as an appeal timely brought to the Court. Consonant with the basic rule in criminal procedure that an appeal opens the whole case for review, we should deem it our duty to correct errors in the appealed judgment, whether assigned or not.[17]
	GR No. 169548 2010-03-15	TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MANUEL A. DAVID DEL CASTILLO, J.
In any event, we reiterate the well-entrenched rule that the factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[31] We are mandated to accord great weight to the findings of the RTC, particularly as regards its assessment of the credibility of witnesses[32] since it is the trial court judge who is in a position to observe and examine the witnesses first hand.[33] Even after a careful and independent scrutiny of the records, we find no cogent reason to depart from the rulings of the courts below.[34]
	GR No. 184172 2009-05-08	PEOPLE v. LUIS ANTONIO GARCHITORENA TINGA, J.
Indeed, great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court had overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.[13] After a careful scrutiny of the records, this Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the rulings of the courts below.
	GR No. 157723 2009-04-30	ROMEO SAYOC Y AQUINO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
Petitioners' weak denial, especially when uncorroborated, cannot overcome the positive identification of them by the prosecution witnesses. As between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence and weight.[15] As found by the trial court, Jaen and the police officer were able to identify the petitioners, as among those who staged the robbery inside the bus, thus:Based on the testimonies of the complainant and PO1 Remedios Terte, the accused were clearly and positively identified as the three men who staged the robbery/ hold-up inside the California bus. It was Ricardo Santos who announced the hold-up after which he pointed a knife at the neck of the complainant while Teodoro Almadin divested him of his jewelry. Romeo Sayoc held everyone at bay by threatening to explode a hand grenade if anyone moved.[16]
	GR No. 174371 2008-12-11	PEOPLE v. WARREN DELA CRUZ Y FRANCISCO REYES, R.T., J.
Self-serving denial cannot overthrow the positive identification that appellant was one of the perpetrators of the crime.[44] In Ferrer v. People,[45] this Court reiterated the longstanding doctrine that denial -
	GR No. 181594 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, however, this Court finds that a modification needs to be made. It is our obligation to correct said error, albeit not assigned as such, as may be found in the judgment appealed from, since an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review.[51]
	GR No. 178204 2008-08-20	PEOPLE v. MARCOS GANIGAN TINGA, J,
Well-settled is the doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.[33] In the present case, we find no reason to depart from the rule.
	GR No. 178546 2008-04-30	PEOPLE v. MUKIM ELING Y MAÑALAC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant assails the full faith and credit given to the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, especially on the testimony of Sakandal. Appellant avers that Sakandal's testimony is marred by inconsistencies considering that he initially stated in categorical terms that he was sitting beside the victim when the latter was shot from behind. Sakandal later testified that he was passing behind the nipa hut where the appellant was sleeping when he saw the latter shoot the victim. We have consistently ruled that on matters involving the credibility of witnesses, the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses since it has observed firsthand their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[33] The trial court has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while on the stand, it can discern whether or not they are telling the truth.[34] The unbending jurisprudence is that its findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[35] It is well to remind appellant that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bar, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[36] The jurisprudential doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.[37] There are no cogent reasons to depart from the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The alleged inconsistency in the testimony of Sakandal does not negate his eyewitness account that he saw appellant shoot the victim. Even then, witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time.[38] Although there may be inconsistencies in minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses, where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant.[39] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the prosecution's case as they tend to erase suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed, thereby negating any misgivings that the same were perjured.[40] Similarly, we note that the eyewitness Sakandal, who is appellant's brother, was shown to have no ill motive to falsely testify against the appellant. In fact, from the mouth of the appellant himself, it was confirmed that prior to the incident, he was in good relationship with his brother, Sakandal. Moreover, appellant also testified that they were very close to each other, and that they did not have any misunderstanding.[41] The same was also true with eyewitness Kaluh who testified against him. Kaluh was five arms' length away from the scene of the crime. Indeed, the testimonies of Sakandal and Kaluh are a positive identification of appellant as the assailant. These constitute direct evidence.[42] Sakandal and Kaluh are eyewitnesses to the very act of the commission of the crime and positively identified the appellant as the offender.
	GR NO. 158053 2007-06-21	EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the damages awarded by the RTC, however, the Court finds that certain modifications need to be made. While not assigned as errors, it is the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, since an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review.[66]
	GR No. 167683 2007-06-08	SERGIO BENINSIG v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
A: At the chest, ma'am.[23] Petitioner offers no convincing reason or argument that would dissuade us from not accepting the credibility of witness Federico's testimony. Thus, we are obliged to apply the doctrinal rule that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses.[24]
	GR NO. 176158 2007-03-27	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABINAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Although Policarpio testified that he was together with the appellant before the victim was killed, which testimony allegedly runs contrary to the declaration of Maribel that Policarpio and the victim were together before the incident, the same is only a minor inconsistency which does not detract from the fact that it was appellant who killed Eleuterio. Besides, witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time. This is even more true if they are called to testify on details of a harrowing and frightening event which unfolded before their eyes.[9] Thus, even if witnesses may have erred in some aspects of their testimonies, the same do not necessarily impair their testimonies nor corrode their credibility.[10]
	GR NO. 174194 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, even granting that Libao erred in identifying the weapon used by the appellant as double-bladed knife, vis-à-vis the medical findings that the said victims died of wounds possibly caused by a single-bladed instrument, it is a settled rule that witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. Even if a witness may have erred in some aspects of his/her testimony, the same does not necessarily impair his/her testimony nor corrode his/her credibility. Where a part of the testimony of a witness runs counter to the medical evidence submitted, it is within the sound discretion of the court to determine which portions of the testimony to reject as false and which to consider worthy of belief.[38]

TOMMY FERRER v. PEOPLE