Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DANTE CLIDORO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 180762 2009-03-04	PEOPLE v. CARLITO DE LEON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial judge was in a better position to determine their credibility.[28]
	GR NO. 172118 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. WARLITO C. FERNANDEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
Q: And how about the gun, where was that gun when he was sexually assaulting you? A: It's just poked on (sic) my head, Sir.[51] What further strengthens the victim's credibility is that she had no ill motive to falsely accuse the appellant of rape. While the appellant claimed that BBB's husband suspected that he (appellant) and BBB were having an affair, no evidence was presented to prove this other than the appellant's self-serving testimony. Appellant in fact admitted that his statement was merely his own conclusion[52] and was without basis. No evidence was presented to show that there had been a rift between the two families or a misunderstanding between BBB and appellant's wife regarding their business partnership. The victim's daughter also testified that the appellant's family would sometimes eat at their house. There is thus no reason to believe that BBB would concoct a story which would destroy the otherwise harmonious relationship between the families. Indeed, when there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witness to falsely testify against or falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[53]
	GR No. 151858 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO PASCUA Y TEOPE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, appellant cannot point to any motive as to why Alma would file a complaint for rape against him. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the appellant as the author of the crime shall be given full faith and credit.[16]
	GR No. 149808 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN LOPEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In any case, the issue of whether appellant was identified as the perpetrator of the crime is a question of credibility. It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial judge was in a better position to determine their credibility.[6]
	GR Nos. 150983-84 2003-11-21	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO TALAVERA Y RULLODA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. It is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape.[13] Hence, the trial court's award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is proper. On the other hand, moral damages is awarded in rape cases to indemnify the victim for the outrage done to her by the accused.[14] This is separate and distinct from the award for civil indemnity. The trial court, therefore, properly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
	GR No. 153781 2003-09-24	PEOPLE v. MATEO GREGORIO Y CARPIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant Juancho Osorio's contention that his identification was merely suggested by the residents is without basis. The wife of the victim and the prosecution witnesses positively identified him as one of the perpetrators of the crime although they did not know his name when they reported the incident. Witnesses need not know the names of the accused as long as they recognized their faces. What is important is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from their own personal knowledge.[14]