This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In People v. Basao,[26] the Court held that: [T]the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on the record. The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy. The forthright answer or the hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone, the flustered look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanch – these can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or lying through his teeth.[27] | |||||
|
2013-10-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We hold otherwise. Although Dukilman was not one of those apprehended at the cottage during the rescue operation, the testimony of Police Inspector Arnado sufficiently established that he was one of the four people apprehended when the police intercepted the "Tamaraw FX" at the Nichols Tollgate.[49] Likewise, the testimony of Police Inspector Ouano sufficiently established that Ronas and Evad were two of those who were arrested during the rescue operation.[50] This Court has held before that to be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy.[51] Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.[52] Moreover, Chan positively identified the accused-appellants and placed all of them at the crime scenes. | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Findings of fact of the RTC, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight and respect.[28] Thus, these findings are not to be disturbed in the absence of clear proof that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance.[29] In this case, petitioner failed to adduce sufficient proof that the trial and the appellate courts so erred. | |||||