Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JUANITO ABELLA

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 148123 2008-06-30	RENE SORIANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
In accordance with jurisprudence,[35] the amount of moral damages is pegged at PhP 50,000.
	GR NO. 142408 2005-09-30	SPS. RICARDO ALMENDRALA AND ROSARIO DOROJA v. SPS. WING ON NGO AND LILY T. NGO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
And as regards the alleged perjured testimonies of Wing On Ngo and Jaime Patalud, it is perfectly within the discretion of the CA to accept portions of the testimony of a witness as it may deem credible and reject those which it believes to be false. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a strict legal maxim in our jurisprudence. It is neither a categorical test of credibility nor a positive rule of universal application.[41] It has its own limitations, for when the mistaken statement is consistent with good faith and is not conclusively indicative of a deliberate perversion, the believable portion of the testimony should be admitted. Although a person may err in memory or in observation in one or more respects, he may have told the truth as to other respects. Stated elsewise, the rule deals only with the weight of evidence and should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by other evidence, particularly where the false portions could be innocent mistakes.[42] There is no concrete evidence that Wing On Ngo or Jaime Patalud intended to pervert the truth or prevaricated when they testified on the intention of the Ngo spouses to make use of the subject property.
	GR No. 155256 2004-07-30	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MEDINA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Eduardo's imputation of ill-motive on the part of Henry Aniversario deserves scant consideration. Assuming arguendo that there is truth to Eduardo's allegation that he defrauded Henry Aniversario in the past, such does not automatically render Henry Aniversario's testimony bereft of credibility. The existence of such grudge does not automatically render the testimony of a witness to be false and unreliable.[16] The trial court even found the testimony of Henry as "clear, simple, easy to believe, positive and jibes with human nature and the ordinary course of human experience."[17]
	GR No. 134604 2003-08-28	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO HUGO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
After a careful evaluation of the records of this case, we find that significant facts and circumstances were overlooked and disregarded by the trial court, justifying a departure from the settled rule that factual findings of the trial court bind this Court.[25]
	GR Nos. 139217-24 2003-06-27	PEOPLE v. NELSON ESPERANZA DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Time and again we have held that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[28] This rule, however, admits of exceptions such as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts.[29]
	GR No. 145993 2003-06-17	PEOPLE v. RUFINO MALLARI Y ILAG DAVIDE JR., C.J.
In view of the diametrically opposed versions of the prosecution and the defense, the resolution of the present case hinges on the credibility of the witnesses who had come forward to testify. We have long recognized that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies lies within the province and competence of the trial court because it has the direct opportunity to observe the witness' attitude, demeanor, deportment, and manner of testifying,[14] all of which aid in determining whether the witness is telling the truth or merely prevaricating. Thus, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great weight and respect and even finality by appellate courts[15] unless some fact or circumstance of weight and substance which could affect the result or disposition of the case was ignored, misapplied, misunderstood, or overlooked by the trial court or when the finding of fact was reached arbitrarily or capriciously.[16] We find no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and its factual findings as to what actually happened, the same being amply supported by evidence.
	GR No. 115758 2002-03-19	ELIDAD C. KHO v. CA DE LEON, JR., J.
On June 3, 1994, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution[8] denying the petitioner's motions for reconsideration and for contempt of court in CA-G.R. SP No. 27803.
	GR No. 144113 2001-06-28	EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
In view of Marino Atienza's positive identification of petitioner as the assailant of Danilo Atienza, the testimony of defense witness Atty. Conrado Abratique crumbles.[32] In any event, the alibi is not much of one since by his own admission, Atty. Abratique left the gathering at the house of the Archbishop of Lipa City at 3:30 p.m. so that he would not know whether petitioner left after that time to perpetrate the killing half an hour later.[33]