Lawyerly

GR No. 185710

2010-01-19

ABAD, J.

But corpus delicti need not be proved by an autopsy report of the dead victim's body or even by the testimony of the physician who examined such body.[5] While such report or testimony is useful for understanding the nature of the injuries the victim suffered, they are not indispensable proof of such injuries or of the fact of death.[6] Nor is the presentation of the murder weapons also indispensable since the physical existence of such weapons is not an element of the crime of murder.[7]

GR No. 186138

2009-09-11

PEOPLE v. LORETO DARIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Simply, Loreto wants this Court to evaluate the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witness. It has often been said, however, that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [27] The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[28] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [29] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[30]

GR No. 177237

2008-10-17

WILLIAM CHING v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the main, petitioner wants this Court to evaluate the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [21] The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[22] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [23] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[24]

GR No. 174405

2008-08-26

FLORA BAUTISTA v. FELICIDAD CASTILLO MERCADO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[11] The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.

GR No. 174205

2008-06-27

GONZALO A. ARANETA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It bears stressing that the mere keeping or having in a man's companion a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place already constitutes child abuse under Section 10(b) of the same Act. Under such rationale, an unwanted embrace on a minor would all the more constitute child abuse.[25] This factual findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[26] The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. In the case under consideration, we find that the trial court did not overlook, misapprehend, or misapply any fact of value for us to overturn the said findings.

GR No. 179278

2008-03-28

PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. CHARLIE VILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[29] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [30] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown that the lower courts had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[31] A scrutiny of the records shows that no such error was committed by either the RTC or the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 173360

2008-03-28

LT. COL. PACIFICO G. ALEJO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[14] The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[43] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[44]

GR No. 175925

2007-08-17

PEOPLE v. JOSE BARCENAL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The long-established rule is that, the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[12] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[13]

GR NO. 173197

2007-04-24

PEOPLE v. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning probative values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[9] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[10]

GR No. 146696

2003-07-03

PEOPLE v. LEONILO PIDOY Y LANGRIO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT VITAL CORROBORATIVE EYEWITNESSES NAMED BY ITS LONE STAR WITNESS.[4] Appellant generally assails the trial court's findings of fact which were based mostly on the testimony of lone prosecution witness Pablo Brillantes. We see no reason to depart from the well-entrenched doctrine that findings of facts of the trial court are accorded due respect and weight unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise. The time-honored rule is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[5]

GR No. 137782

2003-04-01

PEOPLE v. ARTURO NICOLAS Y RINGOR

CARPIO MORALES, J.

With respect to the instrument used in the killing of the victim, its presentation is not indispensable in the prosecution of the accused.[27] The weapon used in the killing, after all, is also not an element of the crime of murder.[28] Thus, this Court held in People v. Bello: [29]

GR No. 128871

2003-03-18

PEOPLE v. JIMMY RUBISO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

We increase the trial court's award of moral damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[16] The purpose of such award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for their wounded feelings.[17] As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death, such as the one at bar, invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[18]

	GR No. 185710 2010-01-19	PEOPLE v. ROMULO TUNIACO ABAD, J.
But corpus delicti need not be proved by an autopsy report of the dead victim's body or even by the testimony of the physician who examined such body.[5] While such report or testimony is useful for understanding the nature of the injuries the victim suffered, they are not indispensable proof of such injuries or of the fact of death.[6] Nor is the presentation of the murder weapons also indispensable since the physical existence of such weapons is not an element of the crime of murder.[7]
	GR No. 186138 2009-09-11	PEOPLE v. LORETO DARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Simply, Loreto wants this Court to evaluate the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witness. It has often been said, however, that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [27] The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[28] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [29] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[30]
	GR No. 177237 2008-10-17	WILLIAM CHING v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the main, petitioner wants this Court to evaluate the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [21] The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[22] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [23] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[24]
	GR No. 174405 2008-08-26	FLORA BAUTISTA v. FELICIDAD CASTILLO MERCADO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[11] The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.
	GR No. 174205 2008-06-27	GONZALO A. ARANETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It bears stressing that the mere keeping or having in a man's companion a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place already constitutes child abuse under Section 10(b) of the same Act. Under such rationale, an unwanted embrace on a minor would all the more constitute child abuse.[25] This factual findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[26] The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. In the case under consideration, we find that the trial court did not overlook, misapprehend, or misapply any fact of value for us to overturn the said findings.
	GR No. 179278 2008-03-28	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. CHARLIE VILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[29] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. [30] This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court unless it be manifestly shown that the lower courts had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[31] A scrutiny of the records shows that no such error was committed by either the RTC or the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 173360 2008-03-28	LT. COL. PACIFICO G. ALEJO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[14] The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[43] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[44]
	GR No. 175925 2007-08-17	PEOPLE v. JOSE BARCENAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The long-established rule is that, the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[12] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[13]
	GR NO. 173197 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning probative values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[9] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[10]
	GR No. 146696 2003-07-03	PEOPLE v. LEONILO PIDOY Y LANGRIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT VITAL CORROBORATIVE EYEWITNESSES NAMED BY ITS LONE STAR WITNESS.[4] Appellant generally assails the trial court's findings of fact which were based mostly on the testimony of lone prosecution witness Pablo Brillantes. We see no reason to depart from the well-entrenched doctrine that findings of facts of the trial court are accorded due respect and weight unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise. The time-honored rule is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[5]
	GR No. 137782 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. ARTURO NICOLAS Y RINGOR CARPIO MORALES, J.
With respect to the instrument used in the killing of the victim, its presentation is not indispensable in the prosecution of the accused.[27] The weapon used in the killing, after all, is also not an element of the crime of murder.[28] Thus, this Court held in People v. Bello: [29]
	GR No. 128871 2003-03-18	PEOPLE v. JIMMY RUBISO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We increase the trial court's award of moral damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[16] The purpose of such award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for their wounded feelings.[17] As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death, such as the one at bar, invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[18]

PEOPLE v. NIEL PIEDAD Y CONSOLACION