This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-12-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable by this Court because they are final and conclusive especially if borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence.[37] In Paterno v. Paterno,[38] the Court explained: Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight - all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court, which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth. | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It has been repeatedly held that, as a rule, the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by this Court[18] if they are borne out by the records or are based on substantial evidence.[19] The factual issues raised by Napoles in this petition, specifically the failure of the NBI to recover the marked money from his possession,[20] the presence of fluorescent powder on his hands,[21] and the alleged violation of his constitutional right when he was arrested by the NBI[22] have all been squarely discussed and fairly settled in the appellate court's decision. | |||||
|
2009-05-25 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, the findings of fact of the quasi-judicial agencies are not reviewable in this Court in a petition for review. However, in instances where the judgment was premised on a misapprehension of facts or when certain material facts and circumstances were overlooked and which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case, a review of the facts by this Court is warranted.[15] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect.[22] Well-settled is the rule that unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case, its findings carry great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal.[23] In line with our earlier conclusion that the first and second audits at issue were in proper order, we find that the respondent Sandiganbayan did not err in denying petitioner's request for a re-audit. | |||||