Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HERMOGENES DE GUZMAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 204481-82 2015-10-14	ALBERT G. AMBAGAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
In the extant case, several circumstances militate against the credibility of Ronnel Bawalan, the sole witness to the alleged inducement. His testimony defies the basic precept that evidence, to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind.[66] To elucidate: First, Ronnel Bawalan claimed that he personally saw the shootout and that he intently observed the events as they unfolded without blinking. He testified that he saw petitioner engage Santos in a verbal altercation in the middle of the street, but nevertheless claimed that he did not see petitioner's whereabouts when the shooting began. As he narrated during his cross-examination:
	GR No. 171590 2014-02-12	BIGNAY EX-IM PHILIPPINES v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
And if it is true that the bank paid the docket fees on its counterclaim as early as in 1994, it would have vigorously insisted on such fact after being apprised of the trial court's March 21, 2000 Decision. It is indeed surprising that the supposed payment was never raised by the bank in a timely motion for reconsideration, considering that the trial court dismissed its counterclaim; if there is any opportune time to direct the court's attention to such payment and cause the counterclaim to be reinstated, it was at that point and no other. All it had to do was prove payment by presenting to the court the official receipts or any other acceptable documentary evidence, and thus secure the proper reversal of the ruling on its counterclaim. Still, nothing was heard from the bank on the issue, until it filed its brief with the CA on appeal. Indeed, "whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance."[43]
	GR No. 190178 2014-02-12	PEOPLE v. FELIMON PATENTES Y ZAMORA PEREZ, J.
2. The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common experience of man.[18] Thus, whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance.[19]