This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To reiterate the time-honored maxim, unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight that would have affected the result of the case, the Court will not disturb factual findings of the lower court. Having had the opportunity of observing the demeanor and behavior of witnesses while testifying, the trial court more than this Court is in a better position to gauge their credibility and properly appreciate the relative weight of the conflicting evidence for both parties. When the issue is one of credibility, the trial court's findings are given great weight on appeal.[21] | |||||
|
2011-04-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court is constrained to once again reiterate the time-honored maxim that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect.[31] In People v. Bondoc,[32] a case also involving the accused's failure to return a minor, we explained the rationale of this maxim: We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The issue involved in this appeal is one of credibility, and this Court has invariably ruled that the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is best performed by the trial courts because they, unlike appellate courts, can weigh the testimony of witnesses in the light of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses at the trial, except when circumstances of weight or influence were ignored or disregarded by them which does not obtain in the present case. | |||||