This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It matters not that no other eyewitness corroborated AAA's testimony of the actual incidents. The testimony of the complainant as a lone witness to the actual perpetration of the act, as long as it is credible, suffices to establish the guilt of the accused because evidence is weighed and not counted.[26] If, in criminal cases of rape[27] or homicide,[28] the positive, categorical and credible testimony of a lone witness is deemed enough to support a conviction, then, in the case at bar, involving a case of violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262, this Court shall treat in the same manner the testimony of a single but credible witness for the prosecution. Especially if the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner, corroborative testimony is not needed to support a conviction.[29] | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is true that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel.[22] But this rule admits of exceptions - (1) where the counsel's mistake is so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and denied his day in court, or (2) where the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the client's deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law.[23] Tested against these guidelines, we hold that petitioner's lot falls within the exceptions. | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that as between bare denials and positive testimony on affirmative matters, the latter is accorded greater evidentiary weight.[31] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Mistake and negligence of a counsel bind his client. The basis is the tenet that an act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of a counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against his client.[52] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of two, not three periods, in which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty imposed, forming one period for each of the three portions.[62] Applying the latter provisions, the maximum, medium and minimum periods of the penalty given are:Maximum -- 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years | |||||
|
2008-01-29 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The elements of estafa under Art. 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC[10] are as follows: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; and (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another.[11] | |||||
|
2008-01-29 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Minimum 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, and 10 days Medium 5 years, 5 months, and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, and 20 days Maximum 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years[15] | |||||