Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAMON ARCILLA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 186465 2011-06-01	PEOPLE v. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA Y LECO PEREZ, J.
It bears stressing that violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was already consummated the moment appellant was found in possession of the said articles without the necessary license or prescription. What is primordial is the proof of the illegal drugs and paraphernalia recovered from the petitioner.[51]
	GR No. 156335 2007-11-28	SPS. RAUL v. CITIBANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court notes the factual nature of the questions raised in the petition. Although the general rule is that only questions of law are entertained by the Court in petitions for review on certiorari,[42] as the Court is not tasked to repeat the lower courts' analysis or weighing of evidence,[43] there are instances when the Court may resolve factual issues, such as (1) when the trial court misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case;[44] and (2) when the findings of facts of the CA and the trial court differ.[45]
	GR NO. 157804 2006-06-20	CERILO BRICENIO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Time and again this Court has said that as a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Questions of fact are not proper subjects for this Court unless there is clear and convincing proof that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; or when the Court of Appeals failed to notice and appreciate certain relevant facts of substance which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion; and when there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts in the light of the evidence on record.[9] In this petition, petitioner has failed to persuade us to depart from this well-established doctrine.
	GR NO. 166479 2006-02-28	RODOLFO C. VELASCO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We agree with the OSG that as ruled by this Court, no questions of facts may be raised in this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, unless, among other grounds, there is clear and convincing proof that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts or when the Court of Appeals failed to notice and appreciate certain relevant facts of substance which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion, and when there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts in the light of the evidence on record. Anything less will not suffice to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming on appeal the decision of the trial court. It bears stressing that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties and the assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the evidence of the parties and its conclusion anchored on its findings are given high respect if not conclusive effect by this Court, especially if affirmed by the Court of Appeals because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing and monitoring the demeanor, conduct and deportment of the witnesses as they regale the court with their testimonies. The exception to this rule is when the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or misappreciated cogent facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case.[21] After scrutinizing the records of the case and thoroughly evaluating all the evidence proffered, we find no reason to deviate from the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 139629 2004-06-21	SANTIAGO LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
Ladder steps going up to the bridge are missing and rotten. The Pilot nearly fell down.[22] The Court gives great respect to the findings of facts of the trial court, especially if affirmed by the appellate court. The Court does not disturb the trial court's calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusion anchored on its findings. The exception to this rule is when the trial court misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case.[23] We have assessed the evidence on record and found no reason to deviate from the trial and appellate courts' findings of facts.