Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RENY DE LOS REYES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181594 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Herein, the RTC and the Court of Appeals were both correct when they held that the justifying circumstance of self-defense was baselessly invoked by appellant Rolly. The latter failed to discharge the burden of proving this justifiable circumstance. His claim that the victim initiated the fracas with his unlawful act of trying to stab the former is specious at best. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person - a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient.[41] But whether or not Rolly, indeed, acted in self-defense is a question of fact;[42] the well-entrenched rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the appellate court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court; and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[43]
	GR NO. 168997 2007-04-13	GREGORIO PELONIA v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Second. The trial court found the collective testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be credible, while those of petitioner incredible and barren of probative weight. The legal aphorism is that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight is given high respect if not conclusive effect, unless cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case, were ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted.[15] We have meticulously reviewed the records and found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court.
	GR NO. 168827 2007-04-13	BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the second issue, the rulings of the trial court and the appellate court are correct. Whether or not petitioner acted in self-defense whether complete or incomplete is a question of fact,[46] the well-entrenched rule is that findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the CA are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[47]