This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence.[50] Matters of credibility are addressed basically to the trial judge who is in a better position than the appellate court to appreciate the weight and evidentiary value of the testimonies of witnesses who have personally appeared before him.[51] The appellate courts are far detached from the details and drama during trial and have to rely solely on the records of the case in its review. On the matter of credence and credibility of witnesses, therefore, the Court acknowledges said limitations and recognizes the advantage of the trial court whose findings must be given due deference.[52] Since the CA and the private respondents failed to show any palpable error, arbitrariness, or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the trial court, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding.[53] | |||||
|
2014-07-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Essentially, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.[26] This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals[27] as in this case. | |||||
|
2012-10-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Similarly, accused-appellants' alibis failed to fortify their claim of innocence because, while they insist on their own version of events, they failed to demonstrate compliance with the requisites of the defense of alibi. In People v. Apattad,[24] the Court reiterated the jurisprudential rules and precepts in assessing the defense of alibi: One, alibis and denials are generally disfavored by the courts for being weak. Two, they cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. Three, for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Fourth, alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible and disinterested witnesses. Fifth, alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses, and the assessment made by the trial court unless patently and clearly inconsistent must be accepted. | |||||