Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANTHONY C. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 205180 2013-11-11	RYAN VIRAY v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
In resolving the present petition, We must reiterate the hornbook rule that this court is not a trier of facts, and the factual findings of the trial court, when sustained by the appellate court, are binding in the absence of any indication that both courts misapprehended any fact that could change the disposition of the controversy.[33]
	GR No. 183100 2012-11-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ABRENCILLO BERSAMIN, J.
Firstly, the findings of the RTC and the CA deserve respect mainly because the RTC as the trial court was in the best position to observe the demeanor and conduct of AAA when she incriminated the accused by her recollection of the incident in court. The personal observation of AAA's conduct and demeanor enabled the trial judge to discern whether she was telling the truth or inventing it.[8] The trial judge's evaluation, which the CA affirmed, now binds the Court, leaving to the accused the burden to bring to the Court's attention facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted by the lower courts but would materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly considered.[9] Alas, the accused made no showing that the RTC, in the first instance, and the CA, on review, ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted any facts or circumstances supportive of or crucial to his defense.[10]
	G .R No. 182230 2012-09-19	PEOPLE v. EDGARDD LUPAC Y FLORES BERSAMIN, J.
Firstly, both the RTC and the CA considered AAA as a credible witness. We accord great weight to their assessment of the credibility of AAA as a witness as well as of her version. Verily, the personal observation of AAA's conduct and demeanor enabled the trial judge to discern if she was telling the truth or inventing it.[12] The trial judge's evaluation, which the CA affirmed, now binds the Court, leaving to the accused the burden to bring to our attention facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted but would materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly considered.[13] Alas, the accused made no showing that the RTC, in the first instance, and the CA, on review, had ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted facts or circumstances supportive of or crucial to his defense.[14]
	GR No. 181491 2012-07-30	PEOPLE v. HENRY ARCILLAS BERSAMIN, J.
AAA rendered a complete and credible narration of her ordeal at the hands of the accused, whom she positively identified in court. Her testimony was corroborated on material points by BBB and her own sister as well as by the medico-legal evidence adduced. With both the RTC and the CA considering AAA as a credible witness whose testimony should be believed, we accord great weight to their assessment. The trial judge was placed in the unique position to discern whether she was telling the truth or inventing it after having personally observed AAA's conduct and demeanor as a witness.[8] The trial judge's evaluation, affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court, and cannot be disturbed, least of all rejected in its entirety, unless Arcillas successfully showed facts or circumstances of weight that the RTC and the CA might have overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if duly considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case differently.[9] Alas, he did not make that showing here.
	GR No. 181250 2012-07-18	PEOPLE v. EMMALYN DELA CERNA Y QUINDAO BERSAMIN, J.
Both the RTC and the CA regarded as credible the testimonies of poseur buyer Agent Zuniga, Jr. and Agent Bautista on what transpired during the buy-bust operation. We concur with both lower courts, and hold that, indeed, the testimonies of the NBI agents as entrapping and arresting officers inspire belief and credence considering that the accused did not impute any ill-motive to them for testifying against them as they did. The RTC judge's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is accorded the highest respect because she had the unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses and had been thereby enabled to determine whether the witnesses were speaking the truth or prevaricating.[16] That evaluation, which the CA affirmed, is now binding on the Court because the appellant has not called attention to facts or circumstances of weight that might have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[17]
	GR No. 169084 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS BERSAMIN, J.
We reiterate that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and of his testimony is accorded the highest respect because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witness that enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[16] Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless the appellant reveals facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[17]
	GR No. 185844 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. ARNEL MANJARES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We note that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals have found and considered the victim's testimony as credible and worthy of belief. We have previously held that when the issue focuses on the credibility of the witnesses or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter's demeanor, conduct, and attitude especially during the cross-examination unless cogent reasons dictate otherwise.[45] Moreover, it is an established rule that findings of fact of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted which would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case.[46] In the case at bar, we see no compelling reason to veer away from this rule.
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
On June 28, 1991, Webb's parents visited him at Anaheim and stayed with the Brottmans. On the same day, his father introduced Honesto Aragon to his son when he came to visit.[40] On the following day, June 29, Webb, in the company of his father and Aragon went to Riverside, California, to look for a car. They bought an MR2 Toyota car.[41] Later that day, a visitor at the Brottman's, Louis Whittacker, saw Webb looking at the plates of his new car.[42] To prove the purchase, Webb presented the Public Records of California Department of Motor Vehicle[43] and a car plate "LEW WEBB."[44] In using the car in the U.S., Webb even received traffic citations.[45]
	GR No. 173822 2010-10-13	SALVADOR ATIZADO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
It is a basic rule of appellate adjudication in this jurisdiction that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and of the witness' testimony is accorded the highest respect because the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of the witness enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[14] Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[15] We thus apply the rule, considering that the petitioners have not called attention to and proved any overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted circumstance. Fortifying the application of the rule is that Mirandilla's positive declarations on the identities of the assailants prevailed over the petitioners' denials and alibi.[16]