Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VICENTE BASQUEZ Y MANZANO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 148939-40 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA CARPIO, J.
Q: And after accused pointed you (sic) knife, can you tell the Court what else did he do after that? A: He had sexual intercourse with me to (sic) times at the same time, sir. COURT: Q: Two times at the same time? WITNESS A: Yes, sir. PROS. RABINA: Q: And when he had sexual intercourse with you for two times as you said on that same day, what was your feeling when he inserted his penis into your vagina? A: It is painful, sir, and I felt some warm matter to my vagina. Q: And can you tell the Honorable Court how long was the accused stayed (sic) on top of you before he ejaculated into your vagina? A: About thirty (30) minutes, sir. xxx Q: Now, you said that the accused was on top of you for at least a period of thirty minutes, do you mean to inform the Honorable Court that the two sexual intercourse that he allegedly committed on your person, he stayed on top of you for a period of thirty minutes, is that what you mean? Q: And for the first time that he ejaculated a warm substance inside your vagina, did accused get out on top of you? A: No, sir. COURT: Q: You mean to tell the Court that it is a case of double shoot in the sense that after ejaculating he is still on top of you but then after that he did it again while he was still on top of your body? WITNESS: A: Yes, sir.[33] Remilyn testified that appellant's penis penetrated her genitalia. At that point, appellant had already consummated the rape. The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape.[34] Hence, it is the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia that consummates rape.[35]
	GR No. 126113 2003-06-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO GUIHAMA Y BARANDA AZCUNA, J.
In the end the rule is settled that where the culpability or innocence of the accused hinges on the credibility of the witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, the findings of trial courts are given the highest degree of respect. Hence, their findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts, unless some fact or circumstance of weight and substance has been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[27] In the case at bar, none of the above arguments raised by appellant presents any compelling reason for us to disregard the factual findings of the trial court.
	GR No. 141800 2002-12-09	PEOPLE v. ELENO PARACALE Y PARDILLA PANGANIBAN, J.
direct opportunity to observe their demeanor during trial[52] and to note their conduct and attitude.[53] Indeed, the emphasis, the gestures, the inflection of the voice and the like are potent aids in ascertaining their credibility. The trial court had the advantage of these aids, which cannot be incorporated into the records. Appellate court, on the other hand, can only read the cold words of the witnesses as contained in transcripts of their testimonies, with the risk that some of what they have communicated by word and behavior may have been lost in the process of transcription.[54] Second Issue:
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
attitude.[16] It is aided by various indicia that are not readily apparent from the records: "the candid answer, the hesitant pause, the nervous voice, the undertone, the befuddled look, the honest gaze, the modest blush, or the guilty blanch" reveal if they are telling the gospel truth or just spinning a web of lies.[17] Hence, its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[18] In the present case, the RTC found the testimonies of the four passenger-witnesses to be credible, coherent and straightforward accounts of what had transpired inside the passenger jeepney on the night of March 4, 1994.[19] Prosecution Witness Roberto
	GR No. 126146 2002-03-12	PEOPLE v. JEMREICH MATIGNAS Y SAN PASCUAL PANGANIBAN, J.
A Yes, sir. Q [Were] there any obstruction between you and the place where Cherry or the girl was grabbed? A None, sir."[22] The trial court found the witnesses to be reliable and credible and not driven by any ill will or false motive in testifying against appellants. Settled is the rule that where the culpability or the innocence of the accused hinges on the credibility of the witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, the findings of trial courts are given the highest degree of respect. This is because of its unique opportunity to observe them firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Hence, their findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[23]
	GR No. 144052 2002-03-06	PEOPLE v. CONRADO DE LEON PANGANIBAN, J.
As this Court has held, the participation of judges in the conduct of trials cannot be condemned outrightly.[42] They cannot be expected to remain always passive and stoic during the proceedings.[43] After all, they are not prohibited from asking questions when proper and necessary. In fact, this Court has repeatedly ruled that judges "must be accorded a reasonable leeway in asking [witnesses] questions x x x as may be essential to elicit relevant facts and to bring out the truth."[44]