This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-03-14 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| There is good reason behind this time-honored legal precept. The trial judge has the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine by their demeanor on the stand the probative value of their testimonies. The Court in People v. Yadao,[4] elucidated thus:x x x The witnesses reveal much when they testify that is not reflected in the transcript, which only records what they say but not how they said it. The meaningful pause, the ready reply, the angry denial, the elusive eyes or the forthright stare, the sudden pallor when a lie is exposed or the flush of face that accentuates a sincere assertion - these and many other tell-tale marks of honesty or invention are not lost on the trial judge. It is for this reason that his factual findings are generally not disturbed by the appellate court unless they are found to be clearly biased or arbitrary. x x x[5] | |||||
|
2005-10-11 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, this Court holds that the proviso directing that the real property tax be based on the actual amount reflected in the deed of conveyance or the prevailing BIR zonal value is invalid not only because it mandates an exclusive rule in determining the fair market value but more so because it departs from the established procedures stated in the Local Assessment Regulations No. 1-92 and unduly interferes with the duties statutorily placed upon the local assessor[58] by completely dispensing with his analysis and discretion which the Code and the regulations require to be exercised. An ordinance that contravenes any statute is ultra vires and void.[59] | |||||