Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VALERIANO AMESTUZO Y VIÑAS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 180308 2012-06-19	PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. SENATE OF REPUBLIC PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Corollarily, petitioners Locsin and Andal's allegation[15] that their constitutionally-guaranteed right to counsel was violated during the hearings held in furtherance of PSR No. 455 is specious. The right to be assisted by counsel can only be invoked by a person under custodial investigation suspected for the commission of a crime, and therefore attaches only during such custodial investigation.[16] Since petitioners Locsin and Andal were invited to the public hearings as resource persons, they cannot therefore validly invoke their right to counsel.
	GR No. 171348 2008-11-26	PEOPLE v. LARRY ERGUIZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the case at bar, although the orchard is just a minute away from the house of appellant, in view of the testimony of the hilot Juanita that appellant was with her from 5:10 p.m. and never left his house from that time until his wife gave birth at 3:00 a.m.; and the testimony of Joy that she never left AAA in the orchard and that they both went home together, the defense of alibi assumes significance or strength when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness.[86] Thus, the Court finds that appellant's alibi is substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
	GR No. 153538 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. LOLITO ESTOYA PANGANIBAN, J.
Jurisprudential rules and precepts guide this Court in assessing the proffered defense. One, alibis and denials are generally disfavored by the courts for being weak.[24] Two, they cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime.[25] Three, for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[26] Fourth, alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible and disinterested witnesses. [27] Fifth, alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses, and the assessment made by the trial court -- unless patently and clearly inconsistent -- must be accepted.[28]
	GR No. 152160 2004-01-13	VIRGILIO BON v. PEOPLE PANGANIBAN, J.
Verily, the inquiry on the illegal cutting of trees, which --with the assistance of the barangay tanods[23] -- was conducted by the owner's brother, Manuel Dangalan cannot be deemed a custodial investigation. Consequently, the guarantees of Section 12 (1) of Article III[24] of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, cannot be successfully invoked by petitioner.[25]
	GR No. 141438-40 2003-02-03	PEOPLE v. LITO LIMPANGOG PANGANIBAN, J.
Aside from the shaky and unreliable identification testimonies of Pedro and Reny Boy, there is no other evidence to prove that appellant was guilty of the crimes charged. Since these testimonies cannot be given weight, the evidence that he was one of the malefactors falls short of the proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal cases.[31] Consequently, the constitutional presumption of innocence must be upheld.[32]
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
Alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness.[37] For it to prosper, the accused must be able to prove (a) that they were in another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense, and (b) that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time it happened.[38] In the case at bar, the alibis of appellants fail to meet the requisites for a valid defense.[39] While their presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense was tried to be established by the defense witnesses, the latter failed
	GR No. 143660 2002-06-05	PEOPLE v. BOY DOMINGO PANGANIBAN, J.
We are not convinced. Well-settled is the rule that alibi is always viewed with suspicion, because it is inherently weak and unreliable.[29] The defense of alibi assumes significance or strength when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness.[30] For alibi to prosper, the accused must be able to (a) prove his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him at that time to have been at the scene of the crime.[31]