This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it is apparent that petitioner is raising questions of fact in the instant Petition. Be it noted that in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law must be entertained. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[27] When the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts or when the query necessarily solicits calibration of the whole evidence considering mostly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and probabilities of the situation, questions or errors of fact are raised.[28] The rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45, however, admits of certain exceptions,[29] among which is when the findings of the trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture. As will be discussed further, we find the afore-mentioned exception to be applicable in the present Petition, thus, warranting a departure from the general rule. | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We stress the procedural tenet that a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law.[24] A question of law has been defined as one that does not call for any examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties;[25] a question of fact arises when the doubt or difference pertains to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts or when the query necessarily solicits calibration of the whole evidence considering mostly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another and to the whole and probabilities of the situation.[26] We have consistently held that in a petition for review on certiorari, this Court does not sit as an arbiter of facts for it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[27] Such factual findings can be questioned only if, among other exceptions,[28] the findings of fact are conflicting and the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the lower court and/or administrative agency, which exceptional circumstances are present herein, thus, justifying the review by this Court of the factual findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The all too-familiar rule is that this Court will not, in a Petition for Review on Certiorari, entertain matters factual in nature for the simple reason that this Court is not a trier of facts.[5] It is not for this Court to calibrate the evidence on record, as this is the function of the trial court.[6] While there are exceptions to the rule, nevertheless, after a perusal of the records, there is no justification to depart therefrom. Besides, the trial court's findings of facts, as affirmed by the appellate court on appeal, are binding on this Court, unless the trial and the appellate courts overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would change the outcome of the case.[7] This Court exerted painstaking effort in reviewing the case, and finds no justification to reverse the questioned ruling of the Court of Appeals. | |||||