Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HAIRATUL JUBAIL y KILIH alias “SHAIRA JUBAIL y AHARUL” and RUAINA NURUDDIN y MOHAMMAD alias “RUAI NURUDDIN y HARIN”

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 191753 2012-09-17	PEOPLE v. RONALD DE JESUS Y APACIBLE BRION, J.
The settled rule is that factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the trial court is shown to have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[8] A careful study of the records in this regard shows no compelling reason to overturn the lower courts' factual findings and their evaluation of the presented evidence.
	GR No. 191913 2012-03-21	SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
All told, We are convinced that petitioner was only defending himself on the night he shot his fellow police officer. The rule is that factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[21] This rule is binding except where the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[22] As earlier pointed out, the trial court did not consider certain facts and circumstances that materially affect the outcome of the instant case. We must, therefore, acquit petitioner.
	GR No. 171487 2008-03-14	ERMIN DACLES Y OLEDO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We deal first with the argument raised by the Office of the Solicitor General that it is too late for petitioner to raise the issue on the identity of the confiscated shabu. The long-standing precept is that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review. [24] The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[25]
	GR NO. 177569 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indeed, we agree with appellant that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence. An accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven otherwise and the prosecution has the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own weight and not rely on the weakness of the defense.[30] In this case, however, we find that the presumption of innocence has been overturned and appellant's guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt when the prosecution established all the elements of the crime charged.
	GR No. 174773 2007-10-02	PEOPLE v. MARILYN MIRANDA Y RAMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the outset, we address the argument raised by the OSG that it is now too late for appellant to raise the issue of chain of custody on appeal. Such stance clearly overlooks one of the distinctions between a criminal case and a civil case. To reiterate, an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[18] Notwithstanding this, we still find no cogent reason warranting the acquittal of appellant in this case.
	GR NO. 169246 2007-01-26	PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUZMAN Y BOCBOSILA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant asserts that the testimony of Danilo runs counter to the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. Even if we were to disregard as evidence for the prosecution the testimony of Danilo, the categorical and credible testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses are sufficient to support the finding of guilt on the part of appellant. It should be emphasized that the testimony of one eyewitness would be enough to support a conviction provided it is positive, credible, clear and straightforward.[25]
	GR NO. 150723 2006-07-11	RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or reverse the lower court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[26]
	GR NO. 143380 2005-04-11	OLIMPIO PANGONOROM v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[14]
	GR NO. 158203 2005-03-31	PEOPLE v. RICO CALUMPANG QUISUMBING, J.
Appellants' defense of alibi was indeed weak, since their alibis were corroborated only by their relatives and friends, and it was not shown that it was impossible for them to be at the place of the incident. However, the rule that an accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was never intended to change or shift the burden of proof in criminal cases. It is basic that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[46] Unless the prosecution overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused by competent and credible evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption remains.[47] There being no sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt pointing to appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, appellants' presumed innocence stands.