This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The question of whether the subject properties were acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia is a factual issue. Both the trial and appellate courts agreed that the subject properties were in fact acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia.[22] The tax declarations[23] covering the subject properties, along with the unrebutted testimony of Eusebia's witnesses, establish this fact. We give due deference to factual findings of trial courts,[24] especially when affirmed by the appellate court. A reversal of this finding can only occur if petitioners show sufficient reason for us to doubt its correctness. Petitioners in the present case have not. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| To be sure, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[40] For it to prosper, proof that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed is insufficient. He must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.[41] In the case before us, appellant himself testified that he was at the very same area where the house of the victim was located. He never testified that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime on the date and at the time she testified to. What is clear is that he was within the vicinity of the locus criminis. | |||||
|
2003-06-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We are very much aware of the well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court deserve utmost respect and will not be disturbed on appeal because the trial court, unlike reviewing tribunals, had a firsthand opportunity to observe the demeanor and the conduct of the witnesses and could thus better assess their capacity to speak the truth.[7] Nevertheless, such rule admits of exceptions, such as when the trial court has overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance and value, which if considered would change the result of the case. After a painstaking review of the records of the case, we find certain circumstances which if weighed would tilt the scales of justice in favor of appellant and cast a doubt on her guilt. | |||||