Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 165411 2009-06-18	WILMA TABANIAG v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.[42] What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty.[43] In the case at bar, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden. Based on the foregoing, it would then be unnecessary to discuss the other assigned errors.
	GR No. 171348 2008-11-26	PEOPLE v. LARRY ERGUIZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.[91] What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty.[92] Upon the prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life.[93]
	GR No. 131842 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO JACKSON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We have held time after time that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[17] This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, or the forthright tone of a ready reply; the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.[18] Only when there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would have altered the results of the case, will we depart from this rule.[19]