This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Since a charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[21] because conviction may rest solely thereon, it is required that the victim's testimony be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and unavoidably, her own credibility as well must be put on trial.[23] Equally important is the settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses.[24] Thus, the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record.[25] In People v. Guanson,[26] the Court held that: Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, could weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate the truth against falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstance of significance.[27] | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| With the above provision of law and preceding discussions, in tandem with the Court's pronouncements in numerous cases, i.e., Director of Forestry v. Muñoz;[20] Antonio v. Barroga;[21] Republic v. Court of Appeals.;[22] National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals;[23] Carabot v. Court of Appeals;[24] Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court;[25] Widows and Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals;[26] Director of Lands v. Heirs of Isabel Tesalona;[27] and Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals,[28] it is quite evident that the RTC committed no reversible error in taking heed of our final, and executory, decisions those decisions considered to have attained the status of judicial precedents in so far as the use of Spanish titles to evidence ownership are concerned. For it is the better practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.[29] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The BANK failed to produce the best evidence the original copies of the loan application and promissory note. The Best Evidence Rule provides that the court shall not receive any evidence that is merely substitutionary in its nature, such as photocopies, as long as the original evidence can be had.[39] Absent a clear showing that the original writing has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court, the photocopy must be disregarded, being unworthy of any probative value and being an inadmissible piece of evidence.[40] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The burden of proof rests upon petitioner, as plaintiff, to establish its case based on a preponderance of evidence. It is well-settled that in civil cases, the party that alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.[11] Petitioner failed to prove that respondent had an obligation in the principal amount of P24,388.36, because the photocopies of the original sales invoices it had presented in court were inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, had they been admissible, they would still have had little probative value.[12] | |||||