Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUANITO T. MERENCILLO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188165 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
The three rulings the State has cited here did not overturn the interpretation made in Soriano, Jr. of the term transaction as used in Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 because the proper interpretation of the term was clearly not decisive in those cases. On the contrary, in the later ruling in Merencillo v. People,[85] promulgated in 2007, the Court reiterated the restrictive interpretation given in Soriano, Jr. to the term transaction as used in Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 in connection with a differentiation between bribery under the Revised Penal Code and the violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 by holding that the latter is "limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene under the law."
	GR No. 187154 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ MENDOZA, J.
We find the alleged inconsistencies to be minor and inconsequential. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, the inconsistency does not refer to any of the material ingredients of rape as would affect the criminal liability of the accused. In Merencillo v. People, [18] we wrote: Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses' honesty. The test is whether the testimonies agree on essential facts and whether the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other so as to make a consistent and coherent whole.
	GR No. 168544 2009-03-31	LINDA CADIAO-PALACIOS v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
The assessment of the credibility of a witness is primarily the function of a trial court, which had the benefit of observing firsthand the demeanor or deportment of the witness.[35] It is within the discretion of the Sandiganbayan to weigh the evidence presented by the parties, as well as to accord full faith to those it regards as credible and reject those it considers perjurious or fabricated.[36] Between the Sandiganbayan and this Court, the former was concededly in a better position to determine whether or not a witness was telling the truth.[37]
	GR No. 166245 2008-04-09	ETERNAL GARDENS v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE VELASCO JR., J.
Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses' honesty. The test is whether the testimonies agree on essential facts and whether the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other so as to make a consistent and coherent whole.[18]