This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-04-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Anent the credibility of the prosecution's sole witness, which is questioned by petitioner, the same is unmeritorious. Settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity denied the appellate courts, which merely rely on the records of the case.[15] The assessment by the trial court is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, especially when such finding is affirmed by the CA.[16] Truth is established not by the number of witnesses, but by the quality of their testimonies, for in determining the value and credibility of evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered.[17] | |||||
|
2008-12-11 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Q: How about the .38 caliber revolver? A: Warren dela Cuz, Sir.[41] (Emphasis supplied) Cayetano also testified that he had known appellant for a long time as a tricycle driver.[42] Thus, he could not have been mistaken with his identity.Nor is there any evidence that Cayetano was impelled by improper motives in pointing a finger at appellant as one of the culprits.The absence of evidence of improper motive tends to indicate that his testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[43] | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The elements of Estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) there must be false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he must have been induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[50] | |||||
|
2007-09-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The elements of Estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[14] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
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 of each of the three portions.[49] 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 | |||||