This case has been cited 23 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| The aforecited section gives the CA the authority to dismiss an appeal for abandonment if the accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. This authority to dismiss an appeal is, nevertheless, discretionary.[62] When an accused jumps bail during the pendency of his appeal, the appellate court may exercise its discretion whether to proceed with the appeal or dismiss it outright.[63] In several cases, we still proceeded to acquit an accused who remained at large during the pendency of the appeal.[64] | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Simply, Loreto wants this Court to evaluate the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witness. It has often been said, however, that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [27] The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[28] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [29] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[30] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimonies in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[11] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown that the lower courts had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[12] | |||||
|
2009-03-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We disagree. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given.[9] No standard form of behavior can be expected from people who had witnessed a strange or frightful experience.[10] Jurisprudence recognizes that witnesses are naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons. Some fear for their lives and that of their family;[11] while others shy away when those involved in the crime are their relatives[12] or townmates.[13] And where there is delay, it is more important to consider the reason for the delay, which must be sufficient or well-grounded, and not the length of delay.[14] | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[27] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[28] The RTC and the Court of Appeals did not overlook any significant facts in the case. | |||||
|
2008-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[28] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[29] | |||||
|
2008-11-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We are not convinced. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given.[9] In this case, the prosecution eyewitness explained that he did not immediately report the incident to the police because the assailants threatened to hurt him. What made this threat appear so real was the fact that accused-appellants lingered within the vicinity of the crime for a couple of hours after the mauling incident. After the authorities had discovered the victim, however, he volunteered to relate what he had seen. It took him only two days before giving his statement. This delay, if it can be considered as one, is hardly unreasonable or unjustified under the circumstances. | |||||
|
2008-10-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[21] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[22] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the main, petitioner wants this Court to evaluate the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [21] The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[22] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [23] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[24] | |||||
|
2008-09-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In sum, this Court, yields to the factual findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there being no compelling reason to veer away from the same. This is in line with the precept stating that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[17] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, it is best to emphasize that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation;[43] under these circumstances, the Court relies on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the discretion of the trial court, which had the best opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying.[44] Such an opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.[45] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[46] When this Court is asked to go over the evidence presented by the parties and to analyze, assess and weigh the same to ascertain if the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, was correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence and, eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other, the Court will not do the same.[47] When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[48] In the instant case, we find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We do so for the following critical points: First, all the necessary elements for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs were established. The elements are the following: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[49] It is beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction actually took place, as ruled by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Prosecution witness PO2 Ortiz narrated that he was introduced by the informant to defendant-appellant as a buyer of shabu. PO2 Ortiz then told defendant-appellant that he was going to buy shabu worth P200.00. PO2 Ortiz was then handed a small plastic sachet containing the prohibited drug. After his receipt of the item, he handed defendant-appellant the money. PO2 Ortiz then gave the pre-arranged signal and introduced himself to defendant-appellant as a police office. Following the pre-arranged signal, the rest of the team rushed to the scene. Thus: | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[29] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [30] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown that the lower courts had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[31] A scrutiny of the records shows that no such error was committed by either the RTC or the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Worth stressing is that the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC. The settled rule is that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[55] We find no cogent reason to veer away from their findings. | |||||
|
2007-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In sum, this Court yields to the factual findings of the trial court which are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there being no compelling reason to veer away from the same. This is in line with the precept stating that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[20] | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In fine, this Court, defers to the findings of the trial court which are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there being no cogent reason to veer away from such findings. This is in line with the rule stating that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[24] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Between the version of the prosecution as provided by Michael Lauchangco and that of the defense, the former deserves greater credence. As borne out by the records, Lauchangco's testimony stands unrefuted. In narrating how the accused had assaulted the victim with a lead pipe from behind hitting her on the nape or the back of her head, Lauchangco was clear, concise and straightforward. Never had he wavered in his account, remaining firm throughout his testimony in the identification of the accused and no one else as the lone assailant. Lauchangco's opportunity to see how the accused attacked the deceased cannot be doubted. He was at the store when the accused came to the place and his presence was even acknowledged by the accused himself in his testimony. The testimony of Robin de Guzman that he saw Lauchangco running away from the store jibed with Lauchangco's narration of the incident, particularly, his own declaration that he fled from the scene because of fear. Efforts on the part of the defense to show that Lauchangco has ulterior motives in incriminating the accused for lack of concrete proof are futile. Thus, in the absence of any ill motive on the part of Lauchangco to point to the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, his testimony must be given full faith and credit.[12] Worth stressing is that the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC. The settled rule is that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[13] We find no cogent reason to veer away from their findings. | |||||
|
2007-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Before concluding, we again lean to our jurisprudential moorings that the factual finding of the trial court, its calibration of the evidence of the parties and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded respect and are generally conclusive.[37] This is even more true if the findings and conclusions of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[38] In the case at bar, both the trial court and the appellate court ruled that petitioner is guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries. We find no compelling or exceptional reasons to deviate from their findings since they are supported by the evidence on records and by prevailing jurisprudence. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is also worth stressing that the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings of the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[42] We find no compelling reason to deviate from their findings. | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is also worth stressing at this point that the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings of the RTC. We adhere to the well-established rule that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[49] We find no compelling reason to deviate from their findings. | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled doctrine in our jurisprudence that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[29] This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[30] It is worth stressing at this point that the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings of the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[31] We find no compelling reason to deviate from such findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As we have already found, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers which justified the act of petitioner in shooting them. We also ruled that even if the Ferrer brothers provoked the petitioner to shoot them, the latter's use of a gun was not a reasonable means of repelling the act of the Ferrer brothers in throwing stones. It must also be emphasized at this point that both the trial court and the appellate court found that petitioner failed to established by clear and convincing evidence his plea of self-defense. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[54] In the present case, we find no compelling reason to deviate from their findings. Verily, petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of lawful self-defense. | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The stance taken by appellant is unconvincing. In our view, Maria's actions were natural and within the bounds of expected human behavior. Her actions reveal a spontaneous and natural reaction of a person who has yet to fully comprehend a shocking and traumatic event. Besides, the workings of the human mind are unpredictable. People react differently to emotional stress. There is simply no standard form of behavioral response can be expected from anyone when confronted with a strange, startling or frightful occurrence.[45] | |||||
|
2004-11-19 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| This Court agrees with the Solicitor General's observation that there are diametrically opposed versions of how the event happened. When this Court is asked to go over the evidence presented by the parties, and analyze, assess and weigh the same to ascertain if the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, was correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence and, eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other, the Court will not do the same.[12] Moreover, the rule is that the conclusions of the lower court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect. Unless there are substantial facts and circumstances that have been overlooked, which if considered might affect the result of the case, such findings are generally not disturbed on appeal.[13] In the present case, this Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the lower court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[14] | |||||