This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Under principles of criminal law, the principals of a crime are those "who take a direct part in the execution of the act; [t]hose who directly force or induce others to commit it; [or] [t]hose who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished."[169] There is conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it":[170] | |||||
|
2011-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x Where the quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking, the doubt created as to whether the appellant acted as principal or as accomplice will always be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal liability--that of a mere accomplice.[45] | |||||
|
2011-02-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We find the petition without merit. When the trial court's factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, such findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[7] Moreover, where the credibility of the witness is in question, the findings of the trial court are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, and generally will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misappreciated, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the outcome of the case.[8] The rationale for this rule is that the trial court has the advantage of observing first-hand the demeanor, behavior, and manner of the witness on the stand and, thus, is in a better position to determine the witness' credibility.[9] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court generally defers to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witness and their testimonies, for it is in a better position to decide questions of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their attitude and deportment during trial.[10] In the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which would alter a conviction, we are doctrinally bound by the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses.[11] The application of this rule becomes even more stringent when such findings are sustained by the appellate court,[12] as in the present case. | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| There is likewise no indication that Marlon Dellamas and Edgardo Dag-um were improperly motivated when they testified against petitioner. As aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Comment,[17] aside from the prosecution witnesses' relationship with the other participants in the fight, petitioner failed to show any other basis for the ill motive he imputes against them. As a rule, absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.[18] | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Although the prosecution presented evidence that the heirs had incurred actual expenses, no receipts were presented in the trial court. An award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages in the amount of P25,000.00 to the heirs of the victim is warranted because it is reasonable to presume that when death occurs, the family of the victim suffered pecuniary loss for the wake and funeral of the victim although the exact amount was not proved.[41] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| [119] People v. Ballesta, G.R. No. 181632, September 25, 2008, 566 SCRA 400, 416, citing People v. Rendoque, G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000, 322 SCRA 622, 634. | |||||