This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, the Court restates the rule that only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. This rule applies with greater force when the factual findings of the CA are in full agreement with that of the RTC.[21] | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The time-tested rule is that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected because of its unique advantage of having observed their demeanor as they testified.[27] Equally established is the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when such findings affirm those of the trial court,[28] as in this case. This Court refrains from disturbing the CA's findings, if no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of facts can be gleaned from them.[29] We have no reason to depart from this rule. Hence, we affirm the lower courts' assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. | |||||