Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MARIANO TOYCO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 148123 2008-06-30	RENE SORIANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Well-settled is the principle that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter particularly falling within the authority of the trial court, as it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand.[29] A trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight--even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.[30]
	GR No. 160811 2008-04-18	RICKY BASTIAN v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that the testimony of Nemelyn Tulio can be discarded, petitioner's conviction founded on the positive declarations of eyewitness Lorna Bandiola still stands on terra firma. The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that in determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.[28] People v. Ramos,[29] quoting People v. Toyco,[30] is good authority with the following pronouncement:It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge of murder.[31]
	GR No. 135204 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. NARCISO RAMOS Y MATIAS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The foregoing testimony clearly shows that Ambal, being then present at the locus of the crime, was able to identify the appellant and the other accused as the persons who killed William. Ambal narrated the incidents leading to the victim's death with clarity and lucidity that they could not have been fabricated or concocted. The records show that throughout the trial, he remained steadfast in his testimony. There is thus no doubt in our minds that this lone eyewitness is credible. While his testimony is uncorroborated, still it sustains the conviction of appellant. In People vs. Toyco,[6] we held:"It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction even in charge of murder."
	GR No. 143764 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. SAM HINAUT PANGANIBAN, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction, even in a charge of murder.[25] Moreover, it is basic that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any indication that some material fact was overlooked or neglected.[26]
	GR Nos. 131864-65 2001-09-27	PEOPLE v. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At any rate, even if nighttime was alleged in the information, the same will still not affect accused-appellant's criminal liability as there was no showing that he deliberately sought nocturnity to facilitate the commission of the crime, or that it insured his immunity from capture.[19]
	GR No. 135936 2001-09-19	PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR MENDOZA, J.
Third. The trial court correctly rejected the defense of alibi by accused-appellant. The testimonies of his witnesses, Norbie Carbon and Sofronio Mirador, cannot prevail over the positive identification by Carmelita Nacario of accused-appellant as her husband's attacker.[30] Considering that alibis are easy to fabricate with the aid of relatives, friends, or even those not related to the accused, such a defense is generally regarded as weak and unreliable.[31] In this case, the defense of alibi was supported by nothing more than the testimonies of accused-appellant's brother, Sofronio Mirador, and Norbie Carbon, an employee of Pedro Mirador, another brother of accused-appellant. As this Court held: "Alibi becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by relatives and friends who may then not be impartial witnesses."[32] In contrast, the positive and categorical identification by the victim's wife of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime was buttressed by the fact that no ill motive to testify falsely can be ascribed on her. The defense of alibi must be rejected when the accused's identity is satisfactorily and categorically established by an eyewitness to the offense who has no ill motive to testify falsely against him.[33] Indeed, accused-appellant admitted that the victim's wife had no reason to testify falsely against him since they had a good relationship.[34] Settled is the rule that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder.[35]
	GR No. 131805 2001-09-07	PEOPLE v. GREGORIO HERMOSA PUNO, J.
The appellants' defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over their positive identification. Alibi is the weakest defense as it is easy to concoct. For alibi to prosper, an accused must not only prove that he was absent at the crime scene at the time of its commission, but also, that it was physically impossible for him to be so situated at said distance.[35]