Lawyerly

GR No. 160408

2016-01-11

BERSAMIN, J.

It is notable that in reaching its conclusion that Linda's deed of sale had been executed simultaneously with the real estate mortgage, the CA first compared the unfilled deed of sale presented by Linda with the notarized deed of sale adduced by Adelaida. The CA justly deduced that the completion and execution of the deed of sale had been conditioned on the non-payment of the debt by Linda, and reasonably pronounced that such circumstances rendered the transaction pactum commissorium. The Court should not disturb or undo the CA's conclusion in the absence of the clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness on the part of the CA.[10]

GR No. 160684

2015-09-02

CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HI-GRADE FEEDS CORPORATION

PEREZ, J.

Parenthetically, although the general rule is that the factual findings of the trial court are accorded respect and are not generally disturbed on appeal, the aforesaid rule does not apply in the case at bar, as the findings of the trial court and the appellate court are contradictory.[24]

GR No. 195244

2015-06-22

PEOPLE v. ALVIN ESUGON Y AVILA

BERSAMIN, J.

It is true that an appeal in a criminal case like this one opens the record of the trial bare and open. Even so, the finding of facts by the trial court are still entitled to great respect especially when affirmed on appeal by the CA.[19] This great respect for such findings rests mainly on the trial court's direct and personal access to the witnesses while they testify in its presence, giving them the unique opportunity to observe their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the counsel for the accused, and to see if the witnesses were fidgeting and prevaricating, or sincere and trustworthy. With both the RTC and the CA sharing the conviction on Carl's credibility, his capacity to perceive and his ability to communicate his perception, we cannot depart from their common conclusion. Moreover, according credence to Carl's testimony despite his tender age would not be unprecedented. In People v. Mendiola,[20] the Court considered a 6-year-old victim competent, and regarded her testimony against the accused credible. In Dulla v. Court of Appeals,[21] the testimony of the three-year-old victim was deemed acceptable. As such, Carl's testimony was entitled to full probative weight.

GR No. 167454

2014-09-24

EMERITU C. BARUT v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

Although the record of the trial is laid bare and open during every appeal in a criminal case, the credibility of witnesses is a factual issue that the Court cannot disturb in this appeal.[5] We reiterate that the findings of fact by the trial court are accorded great respect especially when affirmed on appeal by the CA.[6] This great respect for such findings rests mainly on the trial judge's access to the witnesses while they testify in her presence, giving the trial judge the personal and direct observation of their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the counsel for the accused, thereby enabling her to see if the witnesses were fidgeting and prevaricating, or were sincere and trustworthy.

GR No. 197336

2014-09-03

CORPORATION v. ROLANDO CORDERO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It will suffice for this Court to rely on the judgment of the trial and appellate courts; "[p]revailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of facts of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court."[30] Their singular judgment will not be disturbed. Thus, both tribunals unanimously held that in the first instance, petitioner had no probable cause to complain, since it had no personality to sue, given that the affected portion is foreshore or public land; that petitioner did not deny that it conducted quarrying of sand and gravel which could have caused the erosion of its own beach; that it offered to buy respondent's land; that petitioner cannot deny and in fact constructively knew that respondent was authorized by Resolution No. 38 to construct the dike; that a previous case filed by petitioner against respondent, based on the same facts, was dismissed; and that as a whole, petitioner's baseless accusations were particularly intended to vex and humiliate the respondent, who openly objected to petitioner's quarrying of sand and gravel precisely because it caused the erosion of his beach as well. Although it may have been a bit extreme for the CA to declare that petitioner had an "axe to grind" against respondent, this characterization is merely semantic; there is no capriciousness or arbitrariness in the description, because the circumstances leading to the conclusion that petitioner is guilty of malicious prosecution are already present, as far as the tribunals below are concerned. This conclusion can no longer be questioned, given the limitations petitioner is confronted with in a recourse of this nature.

GR No. 187268

2013-09-04

JOVITO C. PLAMERAS v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

The Court reiterates the well-settled rule that, absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[40] As held in the case of Navallo v. Sandiganbayan,[41] the Court ruled that "xxx Findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case, those findings should not be ignored xxx." (Italics supplied)

GR No. 202914

2012-09-26

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. HEIDI R. CHUA

BRION, J.

The Court, in a Rule 45 petition, is not a trier of facts.[5] An exception occurs when the findings of fact of the CA are at variance with the findings of the administrative bodies like the GSIS and the CSC; in this exceptional case, the Court reviews the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the records.[6]

GR No. 194014

2012-09-12

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. ALEJANDRO AND MYRNA REBLANDO

VELASCO JR., J.

Generally, findings of fact of trial courts are accorded great respect and shall not be disturbed,[24] more so when affirmed by the CA.[25] This rule, however, admits of several exceptions,[26] such as when the findings are manifestly mistaken, unsupported by evidence or the result of a misapprehension of acts, as in this case.

GR No. 172447

2009-09-18

IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA EN LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. NATANAEL B. JUANE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

That IEMELIF has presented sufficient evidence to prove its allegations in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 173711-CV, thus, warranting the ejectment of Juane from the subject property, is a matter which the Court can no longer look into. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation.[13] Time and again we have held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower tribunal or office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[14] Findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[15]

GR No. 180992

2009-09-04

ELMER DIAMANTE Y SIOSON v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts and circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[28] In the case at bar, the Court finds that the trial court did not overlook, misapprehend, or misapply any fact of value to warrant a reversal of its findings. Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon this Court.[29]

GR No. 176566

2009-04-16

ELISEO EDUARTE Y. COSCOLLA v. VS.PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts and circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[8] In the case under consideration, we find that the trial court did not overlook, misapprehend, or misapply any fact or value for us to overturn the findings of the trial court. Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[9]

GR No. 179190

2009-01-20

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO L. MAHINAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[7] As a general rule, when the question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth; the trial court is thus in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies.[8] In the instant case, the trial court even categorically stated that Mahinay "was hesitant, uneasy and evasive in his answers to the questions propounded by the prosecutor."

	GR No. 160408 2016-01-11	SPS. ROBERTO v. SPS. SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
It is notable that in reaching its conclusion that Linda's deed of sale had been executed simultaneously with the real estate mortgage, the CA first compared the unfilled deed of sale presented by Linda with the notarized deed of sale adduced by Adelaida. The CA justly deduced that the completion and execution of the deed of sale had been conditioned on the non-payment of the debt by Linda, and reasonably pronounced that such circumstances rendered the transaction pactum commissorium. The Court should not disturb or undo the CA's conclusion in the absence of the clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness on the part of the CA.[10]
	GR No. 160684 2015-09-02	CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HI-GRADE FEEDS CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Parenthetically, although the general rule is that the factual findings of the trial court are accorded respect and are not generally disturbed on appeal, the aforesaid rule does not apply in the case at bar, as the findings of the trial court and the appellate court are contradictory.[24]
	GR No. 195244 2015-06-22	PEOPLE v. ALVIN ESUGON Y AVILA BERSAMIN, J.
It is true that an appeal in a criminal case like this one opens the record of the trial bare and open. Even so, the finding of facts by the trial court are still entitled to great respect especially when affirmed on appeal by the CA.[19] This great respect for such findings rests mainly on the trial court's direct and personal access to the witnesses while they testify in its presence, giving them the unique opportunity to observe their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the counsel for the accused, and to see if the witnesses were fidgeting and prevaricating, or sincere and trustworthy. With both the RTC and the CA sharing the conviction on Carl's credibility, his capacity to perceive and his ability to communicate his perception, we cannot depart from their common conclusion. Moreover, according credence to Carl's testimony despite his tender age would not be unprecedented. In People v. Mendiola,[20] the Court considered a 6-year-old victim competent, and regarded her testimony against the accused credible. In Dulla v. Court of Appeals,[21] the testimony of the three-year-old victim was deemed acceptable. As such, Carl's testimony was entitled to full probative weight.
	GR No. 167454 2014-09-24	EMERITU C. BARUT v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Although the record of the trial is laid bare and open during every appeal in a criminal case, the credibility of witnesses is a factual issue that the Court cannot disturb in this appeal.[5] We reiterate that the findings of fact by the trial court are accorded great respect especially when affirmed on appeal by the CA.[6] This great respect for such findings rests mainly on the trial judge's access to the witnesses while they testify in her presence, giving the trial judge the personal and direct observation of their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the counsel for the accused, thereby enabling her to see if the witnesses were fidgeting and prevaricating, or were sincere and trustworthy.
	GR No. 197336 2014-09-03	CORPORATION v. ROLANDO CORDERO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It will suffice for this Court to rely on the judgment of the trial and appellate courts; "[p]revailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of facts of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court."[30] Their singular judgment will not be disturbed. Thus, both tribunals unanimously held that in the first instance, petitioner had no probable cause to complain, since it had no personality to sue, given that the affected portion is foreshore or public land; that petitioner did not deny that it conducted quarrying of sand and gravel which could have caused the erosion of its own beach; that it offered to buy respondent's land; that petitioner cannot deny and in fact constructively knew that respondent was authorized by Resolution No. 38 to construct the dike; that a previous case filed by petitioner against respondent, based on the same facts, was dismissed; and that as a whole, petitioner's baseless accusations were particularly intended to vex and humiliate the respondent, who openly objected to petitioner's quarrying of sand and gravel precisely because it caused the erosion of his beach as well. Although it may have been a bit extreme for the CA to declare that petitioner had an "axe to grind" against respondent, this characterization is merely semantic; there is no capriciousness or arbitrariness in the description, because the circumstances leading to the conclusion that petitioner is guilty of malicious prosecution are already present, as far as the tribunals below are concerned. This conclusion can no longer be questioned, given the limitations petitioner is confronted with in a recourse of this nature.
	GR No. 187268 2013-09-04	JOVITO C. PLAMERAS v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The Court reiterates the well-settled rule that, absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[40] As held in the case of Navallo v. Sandiganbayan,[41] the Court ruled that "xxx Findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case, those findings should not be ignored xxx." (Italics supplied)
	GR No. 202914 2012-09-26	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. HEIDI R. CHUA BRION, J.
The Court, in a Rule 45 petition, is not a trier of facts.[5] An exception occurs when the findings of fact of the CA are at variance with the findings of the administrative bodies like the GSIS and the CSC; in this exceptional case, the Court reviews the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the records.[6]
	GR No. 194014 2012-09-12	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. ALEJANDRO AND MYRNA REBLANDO VELASCO JR., J.
Generally, findings of fact of trial courts are accorded great respect and shall not be disturbed,[24] more so when affirmed by the CA.[25] This rule, however, admits of several exceptions,[26] such as when the findings are manifestly mistaken, unsupported by evidence or the result of a misapprehension of acts, as in this case.
	GR No. 172447 2009-09-18	IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA EN LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. NATANAEL B. JUANE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
That IEMELIF has presented sufficient evidence to prove its allegations in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 173711-CV, thus, warranting the ejectment of Juane from the subject property, is a matter which the Court can no longer look into. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation.[13] Time and again we have held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower tribunal or office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[14] Findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[15]
	GR No. 180992 2009-09-04	ELMER DIAMANTE Y SIOSON v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts and circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[28] In the case at bar, the Court finds that the trial court did not overlook, misapprehend, or misapply any fact of value to warrant a reversal of its findings. Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon this Court.[29]
	GR No. 176566 2009-04-16	ELISEO EDUARTE Y. COSCOLLA v. VS.PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts and circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[8] In the case under consideration, we find that the trial court did not overlook, misapprehend, or misapply any fact or value for us to overturn the findings of the trial court. Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[9]
	GR No. 179190 2009-01-20	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO L. MAHINAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[7] As a general rule, when the question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth; the trial court is thus in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies.[8] In the instant case, the trial court even categorically stated that Mahinay "was hesitant, uneasy and evasive in his answers to the questions propounded by the prosecutor."

JUAN CASTILLO v. CA