Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RICKY BASTIAN v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 177392 2012-11-26	PAZ DEL ROSARIO v. FELIX H. LIMCAOCO ABAD, J.
It is settled that the conclusions and findings of fact of a trial judge are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed on appeal, unless strong and compelling evidence to the contrary exists.[17] In comparison, appellate magistrates merely read and rely on the cold and inanimate pages of the transcript of stenographic notes and the original records brought before them. This places the trial judge in a better position to examine the real evidence and calibrate the testimonies of the witnesses at the stand.[18]
	GR No. 175330 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO CAPITLE CARPIO, J.
Hence, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.[19]
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that in determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered.The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.[135] As to appellant Webb's voluminous documentary evidence, both the RTC and CA judiciously examined each exhibit and concluded that these do not pass the test of admissibility and materiality insofar as proving the physical impossibility of his presence at the Vizconde residence on June 29, 1991 until the early morning of June 30, 1991.
	GR No. 178778 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. T & SGT. PORFERIO R. ANGUS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The following are the requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support conviction: (a) there is more than one (1) circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven, and (c) the combination of all the circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the one (1) who has committed the crime. Thus, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.[34]