Lawyerly

GR No. 177742

2008-12-17

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established. Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself; otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form. As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt.[26]

GR NO. 172068

2007-08-07

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO MANGUBAT

GARCIA, J.

In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established.[29] Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form.[30]

GR Nos. 148063-64

2004-06-17

PEOPLE v. MAXIMO IBARRIENTOS Y PERICO

QUISUMBING, J.

This is a special qualifying circumstance which must be specifically alleged with certainty in the information, otherwise the death penalty cannot be imposed. The allegation in the information of Criminal Case No. P-2695, that the appellant is an uncle of the victim, is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. We have previously ruled, and now we reiterate, that it is necessary to spell out in an Information for rape that the accused is a "relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity" as stated in Article 266-B.[85] Without such averment, the Information in Criminal Case No. P-2695 falls short of the statutory requirement for the imposition of capital punishment on the offender. Factual allegations in the information do not need to be referred to as "qualifying circumstances", in order to appreciate them as such and raise the penalty. However, these factual allegations must be specified completely, in order to fully inform the accused of the circumstances which warrant the imposition of a higher penalty. Otherwise, such circumstances cannot be appreciated to qualify the offense. Since the Information in Criminal Case No. P-2695 only states that the appellant "is the Uncle of the victim", without stating that he is a "relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity," the qualifying circumstance of relationship cannot be appreciated without offending settled law and doctrine of this Court. As such the appellant can be held liable only for statutory rape.

GR Nos. 152683-84

2003-12-10

PEOPLE v. LEONARDO ILAO

QUISUMBING, J.

As well said in People v. Ramos,[32] "In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established. Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form."

GR No. 149370

2003-09-23

PEOPLE v. MARTIN ALEJO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Given the prevailing circumstances in this case, we find that the prosecution successfully proved that appellant had sexual intercourse with Michelle against her will. However, the imposition by the trial court of death penalty cannot be upheld considering that the minority and relationship, as qualifying circumstances, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form.[22]

GR Nos. 137587 & 138329

2003-07-29

PEOPLE v. TEOFILO MADRONIO Y ISIP

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It has often been said, to the point of being repetitive, that when the credibility of the witness is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight unless it is shown that it has overlooked a certain fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[18] The trial court has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witness as they regale the trial court with their testimonies.[19] In this case, the trial court ruled that Desiree is a credible witness and that her testimony is entitled to full probative weight; we find no reason to deviate from its findings and conclusions.

GR No. 133237

2003-07-11

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO DIZON Y ILARDE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma, of a public trial, unless she was in fact raped.[26] In fine, the trial court correctly convicted the appellant for the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua consonant with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The trial court, following

GR No. 139332

2003-06-20

PEOPLE v. NOLI NOVIO Y AYASO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The contention of the appellant does not persuade. It is stressed that when the credibility of the witness is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight because it has a unique opportunity to hear the testimony of witnesses and observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[8] It has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies.[9]

GR No. 125305

2003-06-18

PEOPLE v. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The contentions of the appellant do not persuade us. By controverting the credibility and probative weight of the collective testimonies of Gracia and Berlin identifying him as the assailant of the victim, the appellant thereby questions the findings of facts made by the trial court. But case law has it that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings, are accorded high respect by the appellate court, if not conclusive effect. The reason for this is that the trial court has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing the deportment, conduct and demeanor of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their respective testimonies.[34]

GR Nos. 131926 & 138991

2003-06-18

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court found the testimony of George straightforward and positive, and entitled to credit and full probative weight.[57] The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and of their probative weight, its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded high respect by the appellate court, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range the demeanor, conduct and deportment of witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies.[58] It is true that the appellate court is not bound by the findings and conclusions of the trial court if the latter ignored, misunderstood, misapplied or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would change the outcome of the case.[59] This ruling, however, is inapplicable in the case at bar, since the appellant failed to establish that the trial court erred in this wise.

GR No. 143432

2003-04-09

PEOPLE v. TERENCIO FUNESTO Y LLOSPARDAS

PUNO, J.

We do not agree. Funesto's argument entails a re-examination of the credibility of witnesses. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court, its conclusions culled from said findings and its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties are accorded great weight, if not conclusive effect, by appellate courts. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court in monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses.[37]

	GR No. 177742 2008-12-17	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO A. LOPIT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established. Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself; otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form. As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt.[26]
	GR NO. 172068 2007-08-07	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO MANGUBAT GARCIA, J.
In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established.[29] Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form.[30]
	GR Nos. 148063-64 2004-06-17	PEOPLE v. MAXIMO IBARRIENTOS Y PERICO QUISUMBING, J.
This is a special qualifying circumstance which must be specifically alleged with certainty in the information, otherwise the death penalty cannot be imposed. The allegation in the information of Criminal Case No. P-2695, that the appellant is an uncle of the victim, is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. We have previously ruled, and now we reiterate, that it is necessary to spell out in an Information for rape that the accused is a "relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity" as stated in Article 266-B.[85] Without such averment, the Information in Criminal Case No. P-2695 falls short of the statutory requirement for the imposition of capital punishment on the offender. Factual allegations in the information do not need to be referred to as "qualifying circumstances", in order to appreciate them as such and raise the penalty. However, these factual allegations must be specified completely, in order to fully inform the accused of the circumstances which warrant the imposition of a higher penalty. Otherwise, such circumstances cannot be appreciated to qualify the offense. Since the Information in Criminal Case No. P-2695 only states that the appellant "is the Uncle of the victim", without stating that he is a "relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity," the qualifying circumstance of relationship cannot be appreciated without offending settled law and doctrine of this Court. As such the appellant can be held liable only for statutory rape.
	GR Nos. 152683-84 2003-12-10	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO ILAO QUISUMBING, J.
As well said in People v. Ramos,[32] "In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established. Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form."
	GR No. 149370 2003-09-23	PEOPLE v. MARTIN ALEJO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Given the prevailing circumstances in this case, we find that the prosecution successfully proved that appellant had sexual intercourse with Michelle against her will. However, the imposition by the trial court of death penalty cannot be upheld considering that the minority and relationship, as qualifying circumstances, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form.[22]
	GR Nos. 137587 & 138329 2003-07-29	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO MADRONIO Y ISIP CALLEJO, SR., J.
It has often been said, to the point of being repetitive, that when the credibility of the witness is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight unless it is shown that it has overlooked a certain fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[18] The trial court has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witness as they regale the trial court with their testimonies.[19] In this case, the trial court ruled that Desiree is a credible witness and that her testimony is entitled to full probative weight; we find no reason to deviate from its findings and conclusions.
	GR No. 133237 2003-07-11	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO DIZON Y ILARDE CALLEJO, SR., J.
allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma, of a public trial, unless she was in fact raped.[26] In fine, the trial court correctly convicted the appellant for the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua consonant with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The trial court, following
	GR No. 139332 2003-06-20	PEOPLE v. NOLI NOVIO Y AYASO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The contention of the appellant does not persuade. It is stressed that when the credibility of the witness is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight because it has a unique opportunity to hear the testimony of witnesses and observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[8] It has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies.[9]
	GR No. 125305 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR CALLEJO, SR., J.
The contentions of the appellant do not persuade us. By controverting the credibility and probative weight of the collective testimonies of Gracia and Berlin identifying him as the assailant of the victim, the appellant thereby questions the findings of facts made by the trial court. But case law has it that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings, are accorded high respect by the appellate court, if not conclusive effect. The reason for this is that the trial court has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing the deportment, conduct and demeanor of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their respective testimonies.[34]
	GR Nos. 131926 & 138991 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court found the testimony of George straightforward and positive, and entitled to credit and full probative weight.[57] The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and of their probative weight, its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded high respect by the appellate court, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range the demeanor, conduct and deportment of witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies.[58] It is true that the appellate court is not bound by the findings and conclusions of the trial court if the latter ignored, misunderstood, misapplied or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would change the outcome of the case.[59] This ruling, however, is inapplicable in the case at bar, since the appellant failed to establish that the trial court erred in this wise.
	GR No. 143432 2003-04-09	PEOPLE v. TERENCIO FUNESTO Y LLOSPARDAS PUNO, J.
We do not agree. Funesto's argument entails a re-examination of the credibility of witnesses. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court, its conclusions culled from said findings and its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties are accorded great weight, if not conclusive effect, by appellate courts. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court in monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses.[37]

PEOPLE v. RUPERTO RAMOS Y DELA CRUZ