Lawyerly

GR No. 172820

2010-06-23

BRION, J.

The elements of estafa under this provision are: (1)the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2)misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (3)the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4)demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property received.[14]

GR No. 182276

2010-03-29

DIONISIO AW v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

Trial Courts are in the best position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appropriate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[46]

GR No. 159116

2009-09-30

SPS. NESTOR AND FELICIDAD DADIZON v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

The conclusion of the MTC, supra - that the Dadizons' supposed acquisition on March 10, 1976 by means of a private document of the 78-square meter portion from Eustaquia Bernadas, Felicidad Dadizon's own mother, had been feigned "to make it appear that the documents were executed on the dates mentioned therein"; and that Dominador Mocorro had been "misled into fencing their residential land as to its correct boundary upon misrepresentation of one Eustaquia Bernadas" in the absence of Elsa Mocorro - was upheld by the RTC as the appellate court for the reason that the Dadizons had not presented any fact or circumstance that the MTC as the trial court had failed to appreciate, but if considered would change the result. The conclusion binds the Court now, for the trial court was in the best position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[21] Absent the showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case, the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of witnesses or other evidence made by the trial court remain binding on the appellate tribunal.[22] The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight, as well as its conclusions based on its findings, are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect.[23]

GR No. 184173

2009-03-13

PEOPLE v. JUDITO MOLINA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As oft repeated by this Court, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies. The trial judge therefore can better determine if such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.[39] Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the said findings,[40] and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.[41]

GR No. 175836

2009-01-30

PEOPLE v. RUBEN CORPUZ Y SIMON

CARPIO MORALES, J.

At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses. The trial court is in the best position to resolve the issue, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial.[24] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses unless it is shown that the latter has overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance to the case.[25] This exception does not obtain in the present cases.

GR No. 150536

2008-09-17

BIENVENIDO GOMBA v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

It is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which has far less evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. With respect to the issue of whether the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, erred in appreciating certain evidence against Gomba, we rule in the negative. It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect, specially when affirmed by the CA.[16] Without any cogent or compelling proof that the lower courts committed reversible error in their decisions, we shall not deviate from the rule.[17] We therefore affirm the findings of both the RTC and the CA that Gomba committed estafa punishable under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC.

GR No. 166246

2008-04-30

ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

Accordingly, the maximum penalty should be within six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years, plus one (1) year for each additional P10,000. [32] With fifteen (15) years in excess of the maximum of eight (8) years, Nepomuceno's maximum penalty stands at twenty-three (23) years. Nevertheless, the penalty cannot exceed twenty (20) years.

GR No. 169059

2007-09-05

PEOPLE v. LAMBERTO RAFON

TINGA, J.

A: No, sir, I was just crying.[36] [Emphasis supplied] At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses,[37] and the trial court is in the best position to resolve the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial.[38] In assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court has laid down the following parameters, thus:First, the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case;

GR NO. 176064

2007-08-07

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MIRANDA Y DOE

TINGA, J.

At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses, and the trial court is in the best position to resolve the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial.[24] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses unless it is shown that the latter has overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily facts- and circumstances of significance to the case.[25] None of the exceptions apply to the case at bar.

GR NO. 170298

2007-06-26

MANUEL S. ISIP v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

From the allegations of the information in Criminal Case No. 136-84, it is clear that petitioner was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are: (1) the offender receives the money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2) the offender misappropriates or converts such money or property or denies receiving such money or property; (3) the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property.[28] All these are present in this case. Petitioner received from complainant a seven-carat diamond (men's ring), valued at P200,000.00, for the purpose of selling the same on commission basis and to deliver the proceeds of the sale thereof or return the jewelry if not sold. Petitioner misappropriated or converted said ring for his own benefit and even denied receiving the same. Despite repeated demands from complainant, petitioner failed to return the ring or the proceeds of the sale thereof causing damage and prejudice to complainant in the amount of P200,000.00.

GR NO. 171447

2006-11-29

PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ARNAIZ Y ARMONIO

TINGA, J.

At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses, specifically the complainant's, and the trial court is in the best position to resolve the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial.[47] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses unless it is shown that the latter has overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily facts and circumstances of significance to the case.[48] None of the exceptions apply to the case at bar.

GR NO. 167084

2006-10-31

MONINA PUCAY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code[21] are: (1) the offender receives the money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2) the offender misappropriates or converts such money or property or denies receiving such money or property; (3) the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) the offended party demands that the offender to return the money or property.[22]

GR NO. 170473

2006-10-12

PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS

TINGA, J.

In the review of rape cases where the credibility of the complainant is in question, this Court consistently relies on the assessment of the trial court. As aptly noted by the Solicitor General, the findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses command great weight and respect.[23] Indeed, the trial court judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the complainant, having personally heard her and observed her deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. [24]

	GR No. 172820 2010-06-23	DULCE PAMINTUAN v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The elements of estafa under this provision are: (1)the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2)misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (3)the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4)demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property received.[14]
	GR No. 182276 2010-03-29	DIONISIO AW v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
Trial Courts are in the best position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appropriate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[46]
	GR No. 159116 2009-09-30	SPS. NESTOR AND FELICIDAD DADIZON v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The conclusion of the MTC, supra - that the Dadizons' supposed acquisition on March 10, 1976 by means of a private document of the 78-square meter portion from Eustaquia Bernadas, Felicidad Dadizon's own mother, had been feigned "to make it appear that the documents were executed on the dates mentioned therein"; and that Dominador Mocorro had been "misled into fencing their residential land as to its correct boundary upon misrepresentation of one Eustaquia Bernadas" in the absence of Elsa Mocorro - was upheld by the RTC as the appellate court for the reason that the Dadizons had not presented any fact or circumstance that the MTC as the trial court had failed to appreciate, but if considered would change the result. The conclusion binds the Court now, for the trial court was in the best position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[21] Absent the showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case, the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of witnesses or other evidence made by the trial court remain binding on the appellate tribunal.[22] The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight, as well as its conclusions based on its findings, are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect.[23]
	GR No. 184173 2009-03-13	PEOPLE v. JUDITO MOLINA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As oft repeated by this Court, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies. The trial judge therefore can better determine if such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.[39] Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the said findings,[40] and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.[41]
	GR No. 175836 2009-01-30	PEOPLE v. RUBEN CORPUZ Y SIMON CARPIO MORALES, J.
At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses. The trial court is in the best position to resolve the issue, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial.[24] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses unless it is shown that the latter has overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance to the case.[25] This exception does not obtain in the present cases.
	GR No. 150536 2008-09-17	BIENVENIDO GOMBA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
It is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which has far less evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. With respect to the issue of whether the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, erred in appreciating certain evidence against Gomba, we rule in the negative. It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect, specially when affirmed by the CA.[16] Without any cogent or compelling proof that the lower courts committed reversible error in their decisions, we shall not deviate from the rule.[17] We therefore affirm the findings of both the RTC and the CA that Gomba committed estafa punishable under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC.
	GR No. 166246 2008-04-30	ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Accordingly, the maximum penalty should be within six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years, plus one (1) year for each additional P10,000. [32] With fifteen (15) years in excess of the maximum of eight (8) years, Nepomuceno's maximum penalty stands at twenty-three (23) years. Nevertheless, the penalty cannot exceed twenty (20) years.
	GR No. 169059 2007-09-05	PEOPLE v. LAMBERTO RAFON TINGA, J.
A: No, sir, I was just crying.[36] [Emphasis supplied] At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses,[37] and the trial court is in the best position to resolve the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial.[38] In assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court has laid down the following parameters, thus:First, the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case;
	GR NO. 176064 2007-08-07	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MIRANDA Y DOE TINGA, J.
At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses, and the trial court is in the best position to resolve the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial.[24] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses unless it is shown that the latter has overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily facts- and circumstances of significance to the case.[25] None of the exceptions apply to the case at bar.
	GR NO. 170298 2007-06-26	MANUEL S. ISIP v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
From the allegations of the information in Criminal Case No. 136-84, it is clear that petitioner was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are: (1) the offender receives the money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2) the offender misappropriates or converts such money or property or denies receiving such money or property; (3) the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property.[28] All these are present in this case. Petitioner received from complainant a seven-carat diamond (men's ring), valued at P200,000.00, for the purpose of selling the same on commission basis and to deliver the proceeds of the sale thereof or return the jewelry if not sold. Petitioner misappropriated or converted said ring for his own benefit and even denied receiving the same. Despite repeated demands from complainant, petitioner failed to return the ring or the proceeds of the sale thereof causing damage and prejudice to complainant in the amount of P200,000.00.
	GR NO. 171447 2006-11-29	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ARNAIZ Y ARMONIO TINGA, J.
At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses, specifically the complainant's, and the trial court is in the best position to resolve the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial.[47] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses unless it is shown that the latter has overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily facts and circumstances of significance to the case.[48] None of the exceptions apply to the case at bar.
	GR NO. 167084 2006-10-31	MONINA PUCAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code[21] are: (1) the offender receives the money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2) the offender misappropriates or converts such money or property or denies receiving such money or property; (3) the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) the offended party demands that the offender to return the money or property.[22]
	GR NO. 170473 2006-10-12	PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS TINGA, J.
In the review of rape cases where the credibility of the complainant is in question, this Court consistently relies on the assessment of the trial court. As aptly noted by the Solicitor General, the findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses command great weight and respect.[23] Indeed, the trial court judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the complainant, having personally heard her and observed her deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. [24]

SYLVIA PEREZ v. PEOPLE