Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO GONZALES JR.

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 143124 2003-07-25	PEOPLE v. ANTHONY SANDIG Y ESPAÑOLA AZCUNA, J.
Appellant cannot capitalize on the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of complainant. Such minor inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, her credibility, for they show that her testimony was neither contrived nor rehearsed. Besides, an errorless testimony cannot be expected when complainant is recounting details of a harrowing experience.[15]
	GR Nos. 149872-73 2003-03-14	PEOPLE v. ROSDIA HAJILI Y SAKILAN PANGANIBAN, J.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Furthermore, this Court is guided by the entrenched rule that the assessment of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct or attitude of the witnesses. The findings of the lower court on this point are accorded great respect and will not be reversed on appeal, unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[15]
	GR Nos. 140727-28 2003-01-31	PEOPLE v. RAQUIM PINUELA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
After a careful review of the evidence on record, we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court. It is well settled that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[14]
	GR Nos. 131589-90 2002-08-06	PEOPLE v. BALTAZAR CESISTA KAPUNAN, J.
"fn">[50] In the second place, a rape victim cannot be expected to immediately remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage especially so since she might in fact have been trying not to remember the traumatic experience.[51] "Time-honored is the doctrine that discrepancies referring to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witnesses' declarations. In fact, they strengthen rather than impair, the witnesses' credibility for they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[52] Besides, an errorless testimony cannot be expected when the complainant is recounting details of a harrowing experience.[53] What matters most is Rea's vivid recollection that the accused-appellant twice raped her. Her inability to give full details of her horrible experience is totally understandable. Undisputedly, the qualifying circumstances of the victim's age and her relationship to the accused must specifically be alleged and proved.[54] In these cases, the records show that although Rea's minority was alleged in the informations in these cases,
	GR Nos. 143200-01 2002-08-01	PEOPLE v. RICHARD R. DEAUNA PANGANIBAN, J.
Although the RTC correctly granted moral damages to the victim in the amount of P50,000[42] for each act of rape, it erred in not granting her another P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto pursuant to current jurisprudence.[43] She is
	GR Nos. 141189-141202 2002-07-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO D. PATANAYAN JR. KAPUNAN, J.
the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted."[119] Here, the trial court found, to which finding we fully agree, that Cherry Grace's testimony was credible, viz: In answer to the questions on cross examination, Cherry Grace admitted certain reasons why she finally revealed what her father has been doing to her (T.S.N., March 2, 1999, p. 11) but then this Court believes that "even if complainant is consumed with revenge, it takes a
	GR Nos. 132130-31 2002-05-29	PEOPLE v. JESUS SUMIBCAY Y REPOLLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, other than the self-serving testimony of accused-appellant, there is absolutely no evidence on record that would show that Glicerio attacked him. Likewise, the Court is totally unconvinced that the firing upon Flordeliza was accidental. Indeed, the trial court, which had the unparalleled opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify,[18] correctly sustained the version presented by the prosecution. We extensively reviewed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found their declarations to be materially corroborated, consistent and credible. It is hard to believe that the prosecution eyewitness, a disinterested party who was not shown to have been moved by improper motive, would perjure herself and falsely implicate accused-appellant in the present case. [19]
	GR Nos. 140235 & 142748 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. PEDRO DARAMAY JR. PANGANIBAN, J.
Appellant asserts the alleged improbability of his intercourse with complainant, who testified that he was behind her while she was standing up. In the light of her harrowing experience, she cannot be expected to recall where she was facing when he raped her. What is important is her vivid recollection that he sexually attacked her against her will.[21]