This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| To this Court's mind, the reliance of the RTC in the equipoise rule is misplaced as a review of previous Court decisions would show that the position of petitioner is in fact correct. The equipoise rule has been generally applied when the parties have already concluded the presentation of their respective evidence as shown in a plethora of cases such as Abarquez v. People,[40] Tin v. People[41] and People v. Leano.[42] | |||||
|
2008-08-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Supreme Court, particularly when the CA affirmed such findings.[26] After all, the trial court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses.[27] The absence of any showing that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial court's determination according credibility to the prosecution evidence. | |||||
|
2007-10-11 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for appellant's invocation of the equipoise rule â"€ that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction[21] â"€ the same must be denied. | |||||