Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SONNY MATIONG

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 197540 2012-02-27	PEOPLE v. DINNES OLASO BRION, J.
We agree with the CA's finding giving credence to the eyewitness' account which firmly and positively identified the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime. The records failed to show any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness to falsely testify against the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant draws attention to the inconsistent statements made by the eyewitness in his sworn affidavit and in his court testimony regarding his participation in the crime. "It is settled that discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit [the said witness] since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete, and are generally subordinated in importance to testimony in open court."[15] In other words, the existence of discrepancies between the sworn affidavit and the testimony of the eyewitness in court does not render his account of the antecedent events unreliable.
	GR No. 174980 2011-08-31	RADITO AURELIO Y REYES v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses that refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[20] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the prosecution's case as they tend to erase any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed thereby negating any misgiving that the same were perjured.[21]
	GR NO. 154502 2007-04-27	EMMIE RESAYO Y CRUZ v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Resayo argues that since Judge Demetriou did not hear the entire testimonies of Esteban and Victoria, the rule on non-interference with the determination of the credibility of witnesses does not apply. Indeed, one of the recognized exceptions to this rule is when the judge who penned the decision is not the judge who received the evidence and heard the witnesses.[8] However, the efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that the ponente only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided over the trial. It does not follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision.[9] In the present case, what Judge Demetriou did not hear was the entire testimony of Esteban and the direct examination and partial cross-examination of Victoria, who was the eyewitness that identified Resayo as Aguinaldo's killer. Hence, upon the continuation of Victoria's testimony, Judge Demetriou still had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of Victoria, who pinned Resayo to the crime. As to Esteban's testimony, Judge Demetriou relied upon the transcribed stenographic notes for her decision. Moreover, the full record was available to Judge Demetriou. There is no sufficient showing that she did not thoroughly examine and analyze the evidence before her, particularly the testimonies of both Esteban and Victoria.
	GR NO. 146706 2005-08-15	TOMAS SALVADOR v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As a rule, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[15] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the prosecution's case as they tend to erase suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed, thereby negating any misgivings that the same were perjured.[16]
	GR No. 146706 2005-07-15	TOMAS SALVADOR v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As a rule, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[15] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the prosecution's case as they tend to erase suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed, thereby negating any misgivings that the same were perjured.[16]
	GR No. 145509 2004-03-16	PEOPLE v. JAYMAR RUGAY Y TORRES QUISUMBING, J.
to appreciate testimonial evidence.[28] Having personal opportunity to observe the witness' deportment and manner of testifying,[29] the trial court judge's determination deserves the highest respect, sometimes even finality. Unless there appears on record some circumstance of weight and influence which had been overlooked[30] or the significance of which had been misinterpreted by the trial court,[31] the reviewing court will not set aside the findings of the trial court. Appellant has not shown any significant fact or circumstance which the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted. All that appellant says is that the testimonies of Leonel and Said are self-serving and that the testimonies of two police characters must be taken with extreme caution, for lack of credibility and weight, but he has not demonstrated convincingly and clearly why the conclusions of the court below should be disturbed and overturned. While Leonel admitted to being a pimp[32] and Said had been a usual suspect in many incidents of robberies,[33] these circumstances do not necessarily make them or their testimonies ipso facto incredible. In People v.
	GR No. 132895 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH CASTILLO PER CURIAM
There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in concert with Castillo to commit the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy, there must be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime without any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter through.[26] Indeed, conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the crime itself.[27]
	GR No. 146664 2002-02-28	JOHN ANGCACO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Third. On the other hand, we think the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery against petitioner. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take.[51] For treachery to exist, two conditions must be present: (1) there must be employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[52] As has been discussed, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Noe and Noel Bergante cannot be given credence. As we already stated, even the trial court acquitted accused Decosto and Edep, both of whom were implicated as the assailants. Without evidence of the manner the aggression was made or how the act resulting in the death of the victim began and developed, it is not possible to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[53]