You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CELSO MORFI

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

2004-03-16
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.
2003-10-23
PER CURIAM
This Court has upheld complaints and informations in prosecutions for rape which merely alleged that a rape has been committed "sometime in the month of April 1993," for a rape committed sometime in 1993;[20] "on or about May 1998," for a rape committed sometime in the first week of May 1998;[21] and "sometime in the month of September 1998," for a rape committed on an evening in September 1998.[22] There is no cogent reason to deviate from these precedents. Thus, the allegations in the Informations which stated that two (2) incidents of rape were committed in July and August 1996 are sufficient to sustain the conviction of appellant therefor.
2003-06-18
CALLEJO, SR., J.
In contrast, the appellant's bare denial of the crimes charged is inherently weak. It cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the private complainant, whose credibility was upheld by the trial court. Between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the appellant, the former deserves more credence.[37] Denials must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.[38] There is none in the case at bar.
2003-05-05
BELLOSILLO, J.
Thus, in prosecutions for rape, we have sustained complaints and informations which merely alleged: "sometime before and until October 15, 1994," for a rape committed in 1993;[34] "on or about May 1998," for a rape committed sometime in the first week of May 1998;[35] "on or about May 1994," for a rape committed on 11 May 1994;[36] "sometime in 1992 and subsequent thereto in 1994," for two counts of rape committed in August and September 1994;[37] "sometime in the month of April 1993," for a rape committed sometime in 1993;[38] "sometime in the month of September 1998," for a rape committed one night in September 1998;[39] "sometime (in) January 1992, and many times thereafter," for a rape committed during the first week of January 1992;[40] and "on or about the year 1990," for a rape committed in 1990.[41]