This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-02-20 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality, considering that it was the trial judge who personally heard such witnesses, observed their demeanor, and the manner in which they testified during trial. Thus, where there is no showing that the trial judge overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then the Court shall not disturb the assessment of the facts and credibility of the witnesses by the trial court. [47] | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court has no reason to doubt the above testimony of Carla. Aside from the fundamental rule that findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses are accorded respect considering that it is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe their conduct and demeanor,[34] the Court notes that appellant herself corroborated the prosecution's account of the crime, viz.: Q How many kilos did you sell to the buyer, if you sold anything? A We first brought one (1) kilo. Q When you say "we", you are referring to you and to Melba Espiritu, is that correct? A Yes, Sir. x x x x Q And what happened while at RFC? A While we were in RFC, I hand[ed] the shabu to Melba Espiritu and then they entered the CR and when they went out of the CR there were already many policemen.[35] | |||||
|
2012-10-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In finding the existence of these elements, the trial and appellate courts in the present case upheld the credibility of the testimony of PO1 Memoracion, as supported by the testimony of PO1 Arago. In this regard, We find no sufficient reason to interfere with the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses pursuant to the principle that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight and sometimes, even with finality.[18] Where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, the Court will not disturb the trial court's assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses since the RTC was in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.[19] The rationale behind this principle was explained by the Court in People v. Dinglasan,[20] to wit: In the matter of credibility of witnesses, we reiterate the familiar and well-entrenched rule that the factual findings of the trial court should be respected. The judge a quo was in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, having personally heard them when they testified and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. It is doctrinally settled that the evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect, because it had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth. This assessment is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that if considered might affect the result of the case. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2012-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| First, the matter of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike the appellate courts, has the direct opportunity to observe and assess the conduct and demeanor of witnesses.[9] Under the circumstances, we find that the RTC judge committed no reversible error when he accorded greater evidentiary weight to the prosecution's version of the events. Buy-bust operations are recognized methods of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in drug-related crimes. These are the time-tested operations that have yielded positive results for the police. On the part of the defense, the theories raised are not also unusual. Upon proof and establishment of a prima facie case based on the buy-bust evidence, the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to support its denial or to show that irregularities attended the buy-bust story that the prosecution presented. The parties' positions both ran along these lines, with the defense relying mainly on denial. | |||||