Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 207175 2014-11-26	EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Both the RTC and the CA chose to brush aside the foregoing unrebutted testimony of Atanacio for being unreliable and considered him a biased witness simply because he is related by affinity to Magsumbol and Magsino. Family relationship, however, does not by itself render a witness' testimony inadmissible or devoid of evidentiary weight.[14] To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.[15]
	GR No. 193188 2011-08-10	PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD VELASCO JR., J.
All in all, we find the evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by accused-appellant. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.[62] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
	GR No. 182551 2011-07-27	PEOPLE v. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[69] Similarly, moral damages may be awarded by the court for the mental anguish suffered by the heirs of the victim by reason of the latter's death. The purpose for making such an award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[70] The award of exemplary damages, on the other hand, is provided under Articles 2229-2230 of the Civil Code, viz: Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
All in all, we find the evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by accused-appellant. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. [66] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
Time and again, this Court has held that factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.[24] In People v. Lusabio, Jr., [25] this Court held: All in all, we find the evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by accused-appellant. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
	GR No. 185163 2011-01-17	PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO VELASCO JR., J.
In deciding this appeal, this Court is guided by the legal aphorism that factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.[34] As this Court held in People v. Lusabio, Jr.:[35]
	GR No. 179487 2010-11-15	ROMEO ILISAN Y PIABOL v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[24] Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper.[25]