Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TEODORICO UBALDO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 169554 2009-10-28	NIEVA M. MANEBO v. SPO1 ROEL D. ACOSTA PERALTA, J.
Moreover, a witness' delay in reporting what she knows about a crime does not render her testimony false or incredible, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case.[37]
	GR No. 157201 2007-09-14	NEMROD GOTIS v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
In Pepito v. CA,[27] the victim, before the killing, had challenged the accused's family with a bolo and an "indian pana." After this attack, the victim went home. The accused thereafter grabbed a bolo, pursued the victim, and killed him. The Court did not consider the victim's act as an unlawful aggression for the purpose of self-defense. However, such was considered a provocation sufficient to mitigate the crime. People v. Ubaldo[28] had likewise disregarded the violent act of the victim before the shooting incident as an unlawful aggression, but appreciated it as a mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.
	GR No. 134534 2002-08-29	PEOPLE v. SPO1 RAFAEL TRAPANE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
shoot Almazan point blank at the back. He also testified that it was PO2 Valencia who was the unlawful aggressor.[20] It is hornbook doctrine that the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses is accorded great respect by the appellate courts by reason of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and to determine whether they are telling the truth or not.[21] This Court will generally not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of witnesses unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked and if considered would affect the outcome of the case.[22] None exist in the case at bar. Besides, there appears no reason for Rebanal to falsely impute such a serious crime on accused-appellant. Absent any proof thereof, the presumption is that witnesses were not actuated by improper motive.[23] We believe that Rebanal was impelled by a genuine desire to see that justice is dispensed.
	GR No. 128593 2002-08-14	PEOPLE v. ZENAIDA MANALAD YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
strange, startling or frightful experience.[14] A witness' delay in reporting what he knew about a crime does not render his testimony false or incredible, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case.[15] Accused-appellant likewise professes lack of motive to kill the victim. Again, there is nothing in this case which will warrant a disregard of the factual findings of the trial court on this score. After appreciating the testimonies of the victim's family, the trial court was
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
minimum; to 14 years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. They are also ORDERED TO PAY the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto and another P50,000 as moral damages pursuant to current jurisprudence.[75] No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
	GR No. 126515 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. ASSEMBLYMAN ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR PARDO, J.
Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Having invoked self-defense as a justifying circumstance, however, accused-appellants are deemed to have admitted having killed the victims, and the burden of evidence is shifted on them to establish and prove their claim. To escape liability, they must show the concurrent presence of all the elements of self-defense, namely: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[63]