Lawyerly

GR No. 190798

2016-01-27

PEREZ, J.

With respect to the petitioners' defenses of denial and alibi, the Court concurs with the lower courts' rejection of these defenses. An assessment of the defenses of denial and alibi necessitates looking into the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. Well-settled is the rule that in determining who between the prosecution and defense witnesses are to be believed, the evaluation of the trial court is accorded much respect for the simple reason that the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they deliver their testimonies.[44] As such, the findings of the trial court is accorded finality unless it has overlooked substantial facts which if properly considered, could alter the result of the case.[45]

GR No. 159723

2004-09-09

ANTONIO S. LIM v. VICTOR K. SAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Q In other words, you did not report this treatment by your brother to the police nor filed any criminal case against him in Court even up to the present? A Yes, sir.[24] Well-settled is the rule that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh or the scant or full realization of an oath all of which are useful for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[25]

GR No. 140618

2003-12-10

PEOPLE v. BERNARDO SARA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

While, admittedly, there were contradictions between the prosecution witnesses' testimonies in open court and their sworn statements, discrepancies do not necessarily impair their credibility, for affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate[66] for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer[67] or due to partial suggestions,[68] and are thus generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.

GR No. 148810

2003-11-18

PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused.[9] However, where the accused admits commission of the crime but invokes self-defense, the basic rule that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution is reversed, and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove the elements of his defense.[10] It then becomes incumbent upon him to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing.[11] Hence, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction must ensue as a matter of consequence. [12]

GR No. 151072

2003-09-23

PEOPLE v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Finally, while flight has been said to be an indication of guilt,[31] this alone cannot justify the conviction of appellants. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. In this exacting standard, the prosecution failed. It follows that the judgment of the lower court convicting appellants should be set aside for failure to meet the quantum of evidence constitutionally required.[32]

GR No. 149075

2003-08-07

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It has been held that some discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony of the witness in open court do not necessarily impair the credibility of her testimony, for affidavits are generally taken ex parte and are often incomplete or even inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer.[15] An affidavit is not a complete reproduction of what the declarant has in mind because it is generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs it after it has been read to him. In any case, open court declarations take precedence over written affidavits in the hierarchy of evidence. Unlike written statements, there is flexibility on the part of the questioner to adapt his questions to elicit the desired answer in order to ferret out the truth.[16]

GR No. 137296

2003-06-26

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO VICENTE Y QUINTO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof.[39] For one to be considered the unlawful aggressor, he must be shown to have exhibited external acts clearly showing his intent to cause and commit harm to the other.[40] In the case at bar, the prosecution witnesses belied any act of aggression on the part of the victim. The evidence shows he was unarmed and had no idea of the impending attack against him.

GR No. 126281

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO

AZCUNA, J.

Furthermore, even assuming that appellant succeeded in weakening the prosecution's evidence, such will not suffice to exculpate him. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing.[58]

GR Nos. 128378

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. ROBERT GOMEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The records show that appellant Robert Gomez is no longer in custody and no explanation was given for his absence. Evidently, he jumped bail, which is a form of flight. In criminal law, flight means the act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. Flight, in jurisprudence, has always been a strong indication of guilt, betraying a desire to evade responsibility.[41]

GR No. 128871

2003-03-18

PEOPLE v. JIMMY RUBISO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

We increase the trial court's award of moral damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[16] The purpose of such award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for their wounded feelings.[17] As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death, such as the one at bar, invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[18]

	GR No. 190798 2016-01-27	RONALD IBAÑEZ v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
With respect to the petitioners' defenses of denial and alibi, the Court concurs with the lower courts' rejection of these defenses. An assessment of the defenses of denial and alibi necessitates looking into the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. Well-settled is the rule that in determining who between the prosecution and defense witnesses are to be believed, the evaluation of the trial court is accorded much respect for the simple reason that the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they deliver their testimonies.[44] As such, the findings of the trial court is accorded finality unless it has overlooked substantial facts which if properly considered, could alter the result of the case.[45]
	GR No. 159723 2004-09-09	ANTONIO S. LIM v. VICTOR K. SAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Q In other words, you did not report this treatment by your brother to the police nor filed any criminal case against him in Court even up to the present? A Yes, sir.[24] Well-settled is the rule that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh or the scant or full realization of an oath all of which are useful for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[25]
	GR No. 140618 2003-12-10	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO SARA CARPIO MORALES, J.
While, admittedly, there were contradictions between the prosecution witnesses' testimonies in open court and their sworn statements, discrepancies do not necessarily impair their credibility, for affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate[66] for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer[67] or due to partial suggestions,[68] and are thus generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.
	GR No. 148810 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused.[9] However, where the accused admits commission of the crime but invokes self-defense, the basic rule that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution is reversed, and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove the elements of his defense.[10] It then becomes incumbent upon him to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing.[11] Hence, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction must ensue as a matter of consequence. [12]
	GR No. 151072 2003-09-23	PEOPLE v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, while flight has been said to be an indication of guilt,[31] this alone cannot justify the conviction of appellants. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. In this exacting standard, the prosecution failed. It follows that the judgment of the lower court convicting appellants should be set aside for failure to meet the quantum of evidence constitutionally required.[32]
	GR No. 149075 2003-08-07	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It has been held that some discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony of the witness in open court do not necessarily impair the credibility of her testimony, for affidavits are generally taken ex parte and are often incomplete or even inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer.[15] An affidavit is not a complete reproduction of what the declarant has in mind because it is generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs it after it has been read to him. In any case, open court declarations take precedence over written affidavits in the hierarchy of evidence. Unlike written statements, there is flexibility on the part of the questioner to adapt his questions to elicit the desired answer in order to ferret out the truth.[16]
	GR No. 137296 2003-06-26	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO VICENTE Y QUINTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof.[39] For one to be considered the unlawful aggressor, he must be shown to have exhibited external acts clearly showing his intent to cause and commit harm to the other.[40] In the case at bar, the prosecution witnesses belied any act of aggression on the part of the victim. The evidence shows he was unarmed and had no idea of the impending attack against him.
	GR No. 126281 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO AZCUNA, J.
Furthermore, even assuming that appellant succeeded in weakening the prosecution's evidence, such will not suffice to exculpate him. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing.[58]
	GR Nos. 128378 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. ROBERT GOMEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The records show that appellant Robert Gomez is no longer in custody and no explanation was given for his absence. Evidently, he jumped bail, which is a form of flight. In criminal law, flight means the act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. Flight, in jurisprudence, has always been a strong indication of guilt, betraying a desire to evade responsibility.[41]
	GR No. 128871 2003-03-18	PEOPLE v. JIMMY RUBISO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We increase the trial court's award of moral damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[16] The purpose of such award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for their wounded feelings.[17] As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death, such as the one at bar, invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[18]

PEOPLE v. DANILO CUETO Y CUETO