Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MIGUEL DANOFRATA Y BAUTISTA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 188902 2011-02-16	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO LOPEZ Y CABAL 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]
	GR No. 184702 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER TALITA ABAD, J.
Talita mainly relied on denial which, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense because it can easily be fabricated.[23] The Court held in People v. Bandin[24] that denial and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses on affirmative matters. Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witnesses, prevails over denial which, if not supported by clear and convincing proof, is a negative and self-serving evidence, undeserving of weight in law.[25]
	GR No. 160541 2008-10-24	RONELO POLO v. PEOPLE 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.[4] The Court of Appeals was correct in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation in Polo's favor. In this case, there was no showing that Balisoro provoked Polo. If there was indeed provocation from Balisoro to merit the attack, it was not adequate to excite Polo to commit a wrong, which must be proportionate in gravity. Also, a sufficient interval of time had already elapsed giving Polo time to regain his reason and exercise self-control.
	GR No. 167982 2008-08-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo disapproved the recommendation. In an Order[5] dated March 10, 2003, he held that there was substantial evidence to hold respondents administratively liable since the contracts awarded to Brand Asia, Ltd. failed to go through the required procedure for public bidding under Executive Order No. 301 dated July 26, 1987. Respondents and Ferrer were found guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from service. Rustia was found guilty of simple misconduct and suspended for six months without pay.
	GR NO. 172695 2007-06-29	PEOPLE v. ISAIAS CASTILLO Y COMPLETO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, we find no cogent reason to review much less depart now 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 this Court, for it is not our function to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to believe a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result. Our task in an appeal via certiorari is limited, as a jurisdictional matter, to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals.[26]
	GR NO. 128213 2005-12-13	AVELLA GARCIA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court, for it is not this Court's function to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again, except when there is serious ground to believe a possible miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. Save in exceptional instances, the Court's task in an appeal via certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the CA.[16] Other than her plea to interpret the evidence in a different light, Avella failed to offer any cogent reason that would persuade this Court to alter the findings of the trial court and the CA, which findings are in agreement.
	GR No. 118912 2004-05-28	PEOPLE v. QUINTIN CASTILLO Y MASANGKAY AZCUNA, J.
This Court thus 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.[38]