Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DANILO REMUDO Y SIRAY

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 175836 2009-01-30	PEOPLE v. RUBEN CORPUZ Y SIMON CARPIO MORALES, J.
The effects of threats and intimidation aside, appellant being the common-law spouse of AAA's mother BBB, moral ascendancy substituted for intimidation. Indeed, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.[30]
	GR No. 150224 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. JOEL YATAR alias “KAWIT” PER CURIAM
The issue regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses should be resolved against appellant. This Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[13] Well-entrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a reexamination if not the disturbance of the same; the reason being that the former is in a better and unique position of hearing first hand the witnesses and observing their deportment, conduct and attitude.[14] Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, the trial judge's assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court's highest respect.[15] Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[16]
	GR No. 139181 2003-10-27	PEOPLE v. JIMMY AQUINO Y VIOLA DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The trial court found Analyn's demeanor while she testified to the rape as frank, straightforward, sincere, and unshaken despite the rigid cross-examination. True, the positive testimony of a credible complainant is sufficient basis for the conviction of rape, for jurisprudence recognizes that a victim who cries rape, more so if she is a minor, almost always says all that are needed to signify that the crime has been committed.[34] It is also true that a woman would not make a charge of rape for reasons other than to seek justice for what is the truth.[35] We must consider, however, a principle equally fundamental: that evidence to be worthy of credit must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself.[36] In this regard, the probability of the testimony of Analyn is suspect in light of the totality of the evidence presented for and against the appellant.
	GR Nos. 146452-53 2002-12-10	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO D. OCHEA PANGANIBAN, J.
document proving her age.[23] Citing People v. Remudo,[24] the OSG argues that the birth certificate or any other official document is no longer necessary to establish minority.
	GR No. 144293 2002-12-04	JOSUE R. LADIANA v. PEOPLE PANGANIBAN, J.
and inexcusable that the former are deprived of their day in court.[32] Also, clients, being bound by the actions of their counsels, cannot complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had their lawyers proceeded differently.[33] A counsel may err as to the competency of witnesses, the sufficiency and the relevance of evidence, the proper defense, the burden of proof, the introduction or the withholding of witnesses or pieces of evidence, or the manner of arguing the case. This Court, however, has ruled several times that those are not even proper grounds for a new trial, unless the counsel's incompetence is so gross that the clients are prevented from fairly presenting their case.[34] Having admitted that he had fatally shot the victim, petitioner had the duty of showing that the killing was justified, and that the latter incurred no criminal liability therefor.[35] Petitioner should have relied on the strength of his own evidence and
	GR No. 138471 2002-10-10	PEOPLE v. MANUEL PRUNA Y RAMIREZ OR ERMAN PRUNA Y RAMIREZ DAVIDE JR., C.J.
victim was a 12-year-old minor; and (c) the categorical finding of the trial court that she was "a minor of a little over twelve years." 5. In People v. Remudo,[74] the trial court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of minority on the strength of (a) the offended party's testimony as to the date of her birth, which showed that she was 13 years old at the time of the rape,
	GR No. 140205 2002-09-03	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY DELA CONCHA Y DECIPULO DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
the death penalty. The fact that the death penalty cannot be actually imposed by reason of JOHNNY's minority at the time of the commission of the offense will not affect his civil liability. We modify the trial court's award of P25,000 as moral damages to WIFFANNY. In conformity with current jurisprudence, we hereby increase it to P50, 000.[39]
	GR No. 140896 2002-05-07	PEOPLE v. JOVENCIO PACANTARA Y MASON DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Time and again, we have said that we will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[15] Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood.[16]