This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| These arguments of Mercado fail to persuade the Court to rule on his acquittal. First, it is a settled doctrine that "factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies and the conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given highest respect."[21] The Court considers the RTC's "unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses."[22] Thus, the Court "accords great respect and even finality to the findings of credibility of the trial court, more so if the same were affirmed by the CA, as in this case."[23] Although jurisprudence cites certain exceptions to this doctrine, none of these exceptional circumstances attend the present case.[24] | |||||
|
2014-11-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the CA correctly ruled that the above requisites are present. Both the CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of Peregrino that the original Contract in the possession of Monark has been lost and that diligent efforts were exerted to find the same but to no avail. Such testimony has remained uncontroverted. As has been repeatedly held by this Court, "findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court."[12] Hence, the Court will respect the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of Peregrino. | |||||
|
2014-07-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| These alleged inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specially with respect to the "principal occurrence and positive identification"[89] of petitioner. Slight inconsistencies in the testimony even strengthen credibility as they show that the "testimony [was] not rehearsed."[90] What is important is that there is consistency as to the occurrence and identity of the perpetrator.[91] | |||||
|
2014-07-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This court held that "findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court,"[100] which is in the best position to observe the witnesses' demeanor while being examined in court.[101] This court gives more weight to such findings if affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[102] The exception to the rule is when the trial court misconstrued facts which if properly appreciated could alter the outcome of the case.[103] | |||||
|
2014-06-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The CA did not grant any award of damages for loss of earning capacity and rightly so. Though Sabina testified as to the monthly salary of the deceased, the same remains unsubstantiated. "Such indemnity cannot be awarded in the absence of documentary evidence except where the victim was either self-employed or a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws."[44] The exceptions find no application in this case. | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The aforementioned inconsistency is, moreover, a minor detail that does not affect the credibility of Russel and Francis as eyewitnesses. Likewise, the other inconsistencies pointed out by appellants pertain "only to collateral or trivial matters and has no substantial effect on the nature of the offense."[34] The primordial consideration is that both Russel and Francis were present at the scene of the crime and that they positively identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime charged.[35] This Court has been consistent in ruling that "although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant."[36] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The aforementioned inconsistency is, moreover, a minor detail that does not affect the credibility of Russel and Francis as eyewitnesses. Likewise, the other inconsistencies pointed out by appellants pertain "only to collateral or trivial matters and has no substantial effect on the nature of the offense."[34] The primordial consideration is that both Russel and Francis were present at the scene of the crime and that they positively identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime charged.[35] This Court has been consistent in ruling that "although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant."[36] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| While no evidence was presented to show that appellants met beforehand and came to an agreement to harm Joseph, their concerted acts before, during and after the incident all point to a unity of purpose and design. Indeed, "proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices."[45] Such proof "may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest."[46] | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Moreover, "it has been held time and again that factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies and the conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. As a rule, the Court will not weigh anew the evidence already passed on by the trial court and affirmed by the CA."[30] Here, the Court sees no compelling reason to depart from this rule. | |||||