This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| At the time the Informations were filed, petitioner Ambagan was already on his second consecutive term as municipal mayor of Amadeo, Cavite, having been elected to the same post during the 2001 National and Local Elections.[5] As mayor with salary allocation of grade 27,[6] the cases against him and his fellow accused were filed with the Sandiganbayan in accordance with Republic Act No. 8249.[7] Ambagan eventually ran and won for a third term in 2007, and was subsequently elected as member of the provincial board of Cavite.[8] | |||||
|
2009-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| First, the trial court did not err in appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses. The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence, its assessment of the probative weight thereof as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect by the appellate courts. The raison d' être for this principle is that the trial court is able to observe and monitor, at close range, the conduct, behavior and deportment of the witnesses as they testify.[21] In fact, the rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[22] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Q: How far is your house to his house? A: Tatlong (3) dipa po ang layo, sir.[84] Alibi is a defense that comes with various jurisprudentially-established limitations. A first limitation fully applicable to this case is that alibi cannot overcome positive identification.[85] For the defense of alibi to prosper, evidence other than the testimony of the accused must be adduced. Evidence referred to in this respect does not merely relate to any piece of evidence that would support the alibi; rather, there must be sufficient evidence to show the physical impossibility (as to time and place) that the accused could have committed or participated in the commission of the crime. For alibi to be given evidentiary value, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that at the time of the commission of the crime, it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the situs criminis.[86] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Q: How far is your house to his house? A: Tatlong (3) dipa po ang layo, sir.[84] Alibi is a defense that comes with various jurisprudentially-established limitations. A first limitation fully applicable to this case is that alibi cannot overcome positive identification.[85] For the defense of alibi to prosper, evidence other than the testimony of the accused must be adduced. Evidence referred to in this respect does not merely relate to any piece of evidence that would support the alibi; rather, there must be sufficient evidence to show the physical impossibility (as to time and place) that the accused could have committed or participated in the commission of the crime. For alibi to be given evidentiary value, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that at the time of the commission of the crime, it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the situs criminis.[86] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| interested in identifying the malefactors to secure their conviction to obtain justice for the death of a beloved.[20] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be shown with clear and convincing evidence that at the time of the commission of the crime charged, the accused is in a place other than the situs of the crime such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the situs criminis when the crime was committed.[69] | |||||