Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FILOMENO MAYINGQUE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 190340 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Rogelio admits that he killed Abacco albeit in self-defense. "The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused [admits] that he [is] the author of the death of the victim and his defense [is] anchored on self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court."[16] With this admission, the burden of evidence is shifted to the appellant to prove that all the essential elements of self-defense are present. He must show and prove by clear and convincing evidence that his act was justified. Otherwise his conviction must be upheld and he cannot be exonerated from criminal liability. On this score, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
	GR No. 186392 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MARCOS SABADLAB Y NARCISO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is furthermore a fundamental rule that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."[41] The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of PO3 Lowaton and MADAC Castillo, on one hand, and accused-appellant, on the other, was in a better position than this Court to determine which of them is telling the truth.
	GR No. 186412 2011-09-07	PEOPLE v. ORLITO VILLACORTA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To begin with, it is fundamental that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect. Such determination made by the trial court proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[17]