Thursday, October 30, 2014

ONE-DAY EXAMINATION OF WITNESS RULE:

     Par. 5(i) of Supreme Court A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC requires that a witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day only. This rule shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts’ discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for justifiable reasons. On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.

Friday, October 24, 2014

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     the propriety of granting letters testamentary to respondents, do not fall within any ground which can be the subject of a direct appeal to thE SUPREME Court UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT. (REPUBLIC VS. MARCOS II [2009], PERALTA, J.)

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     DELAY IN REPORTING RAPE CASES: Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to death threats does not affect the credibility of the complainant, nor can it be taken against her. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. BBB explained that she did not immediately report the abduction, rape and detention of her daughter to the authorities, because Egap threatened to kill AAA, who was then in his custody. Further, BBB testified that, on another occasion, Egap threatened to kill her if she dared to report the matter to the authorities. True enough, when Egap learned that she did what he forbade her to do, he made good his threat and shot her at the back. Thus, BBB's delay in reporting the incident for five months should not be taken against her. (PEOPLE VS. MADSALI [2010], PERALTA, J.).

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person; the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty (PEOPLE VS.  RAMOS [2010], PERALTA, J).

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: The Supreme Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.  This deference to the trial court’s appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court (PENTECOSTES, JR. VS. PEOPLE [2010], PERALTA, J.).