Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAULINO VILLANUEVA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 151911 2011-07-25	EDGAR PAYUMO v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Secondly, the non-presentation of the JAGO records, if they are indeed vital to the acquittal of the accused, speaks of negligence, either on the part of the accused themselves, or on the part of their counsels. In either instance, however, this negligence is binding upon the accused. It is a settled rule that a party cannot blame his counsel for negligence when he himself was guilty of neglect.[43] A client is bound by the acts of his counsel, including the latter's mistakes and negligence.[44]
	GR No. 166502 2008-10-17	FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
As regards the affidavit of desistance executed by Lucia, we could not fault the appellate court for not giving it persuasive value, it being settled that affidavits of recantation made by a witness after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration.[18] Even without the said affidavit, the circumstances of the case do not, however, confirm the culpability of petitioner.
	GR NO. 160729 2007-07-27	JOSEFINA COGTONG v. KYORITSU INTERNATIONAL QUISUMBING, J.
The question of forgery is one of fact. Well-settled is the rule that in the exercise of our power of review, the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this Court. However, there are recognized exceptions, among which is when the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court are conflicting.[7] In this case, the disagreement between the trial court and the Court of Appeals in the factual conclusion, with regard to the alleged forgery of the signatures on the questioned deed of REM and the promissory note, has constrained us to examine the evidence submitted by the parties.
	GR NO. 154721 2007-03-22	ALFONSO FIRAZA v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Private complainant's Affidavit partakes of the nature of an affidavit of desistance. As a rule, this Court frowns upon affidavits of desistance or recantation made after conviction of the accused. Such affidavits deserve scant consideration.[17] The Court explained in length in Molina v. People:[18]
	GR NO. 136207 2005-06-21	HEIRS OF LATE FLOR TUNGPALAN v. CA AND SPS. NAVARRO R. EUSTAQUIO AND ARABELLA K. EUSTAQUIO AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioners lay the blame for the circumstance they are in on their counsel's negligence. We disagree. Records show that each time the pre-trial conference of the case was set, separate notices were sent to them and their counsel. They separately received a copy of the Order of March 8, 1993 on May 14, 1993. The least that petitioners could have done was to coordinate with their counsel but they chose to do nothing after receiving the Order. Their failure to take any step for one (1) year and seven (7) months shows their lack of interest and that they themselves do not believe in their cause of action. We have held that a party cannot blame his counsel when he himself was guilty of neglect;[4] and that the laws aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Vigilantibus sed non dormientibus jura subveniunt.[5]
	GR No. 158802 2004-11-17	IN RE: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA REYNALDO DE VILLA v. DIRECTOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Petitioner-relator's claim that he was "unaware" of the existence of DNA testing until the trial was concluded carries no weight with this Court. Lack of knowledge of the existence of DNA testing speaks of negligence, either on the part of petitioner, or on the part of petitioner's counsel. In either instance, however, this negligence is binding upon petitioner. It is a settled rule that a party cannot blame his counsel for negligence when he himself was guilty of neglect.[54] A client is bound by the acts of his counsel, including the latter's mistakes and negligence.[55] It is likewise settled that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or to a mistaken mode of procedure.[56]
	GR No. 143231 2001-10-26	ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
The issue of whether the twelve checks were issued merely to accommodate the obligation of Sarangani, Inc. as well as the issue of payment of the said obligation are factual issues which are best determined by the trial court. Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would substantially affect the disposition of the case.[9] The jurisdiction of this court over cases elevated from the Court of Appeals is confined to the review of errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals whose findings of fact are conclusive, absent any showing that the findings by the respondent court are entirely devoid of any substantiation on record.[10]
	GR No. 133888 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES PER CURIAM
Be that as it may, recantations are frowned upon by the courts. A recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration.[40] Especially, recantations made after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration.[41]