This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-03-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As against the bare assertions of the Daclans that the breeding station was abandoned and became non-operational, the testimonies of the above public officers are credible. "In the absence of any controverting evidence, the testimonies of public officers are given full faith and credence, as they are presumed to have acted in the regular performance of their official duties."[31] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The State now argues, however, that the Sandiganbayan thereby committed grave abuse of discretion resulting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction for applying the interpretation of the term transaction in Soriano, Jr. considering that the term transaction should be construed more liberally, and positing that Soriano, Jr. was already abandoned by the Court, citing for that purpose the rulings in Mejia v. Pamaran,[82] Peligrino v. People,[83] and Chang v. People.[84] | |||||
|
2007-03-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the Sandiganbayan's act of giving credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Abe Belingan, the settled rule is that the assessment of the credibility of a witness is primarily the function of a trial court, which had the benefit of observing firsthand the demeanor or deportment of the witness.[45] It is well-settled that this Court will not reverse the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses in the absence of arbitrariness, abuse of discretion or palpable error.[46] It is within the discretion of the Sandiganbayan to weigh the evidence presented by the parties, as well as to accord full faith to those it regards as credible and reject those it considers perjurious or fabricated.[47] Moreover, the settled rule is that absent any evidence showing a reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure their testimonies, the logical conclusion is that no improper motive exists, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. In the present case, the fact that Belingan was contracted to cement the supposed second floor of the public market is not a compelling evidence to prove that his testimony is biased. Hence, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the Sandiganbayan with respect to the credibility of Belingan. | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In any criminal prosecution, it is necessary that every essential ingredient of the crime charged must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to overcome the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.[19] To be convicted of violation of Section 3(b)[20] of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, the prosecution has the burden of proving the following elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a share a percentage, or a benefit (3) on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government; (5) in which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene.[21] | |||||