This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2000-11-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, while it is true that alibi - a jaded artifice long regarded by the courts as frail and inherently weak because of the facility with which it can be concocted - was set up by the defense, this will not alter the conclusion as to accused-appellants' doubtful culpability. Courts should not at once look at alibi with disfavor for there are occasions when the explanation of the accused as to his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offense is the plain and simple truth. Alibi assumes further significance and strength in the face of improbabilities and uncertainties of the prosecution's evidence, as in this case.[22] At any rate, a conviction must rest not upon the weakness of the evidence for the defense but upon the strength and forceful stroke of the prosecution's own evidence. | |||||
|
2000-01-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court is also aware of the long settled rule that when the issue is on the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court; however, its factual findings may nonetheless be reversed if by the evidence on record or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[6] In this respect, the Court is not generally inclined to review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals unless its findings are erroneous, absurd, speculative, conjectural, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings culled by the trial court of origin.[7] This rule of course cannot be unqualifiedly applied to a case where the judge who penned the decision was not the one who heard the case, because not having heard the testimonies himself, the judge would not be in a better position than the appellate courts to make such determination.[8] | |||||