This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-07-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we have time and again ruled that factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record. [45] It was the trial court that was able to observe the demeanors of the witnesses, and is consequently in a better position to determine which of the witnesses are telling the truth. Thus, this Court, as a general rule, would not review the factual findings of the courts a quo, except in certain instances such as when: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9)the Court of Appeals manifestlyoverlookedcertain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. [46] | |||||
|
2009-12-16 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Thirdly: The factual findings of the RTC, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of their probative weight are given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, would alter the outcome of the case, were ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted.[23] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A review of the records fails to persuade us to overturn Pablo's judgment of conviction. We have emphasized often enough that the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of their probative weight are given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless cogent facts and circumstances of substance were ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted, which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[73] Under the circumstances, we find no exceptional reason to warrant a deviation from this rule. | |||||
|
2009-01-12 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| As a rule only questions of law are entertained in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. However, the rule allows certain exceptions. Among the recognized exceptions are: (1) when the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) when the finding of facts is contradicted by the evidence on record; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (9) when the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and, (10) when such findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties.[40] | |||||
|
2008-01-22 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In fine, the trial court correctly held that the defense failed to prove the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. There being no unlawful aggression, there is no need to discuss whether the means employed to repel the attack was reasonable or whether appellant sufficiently provoked the victim into attacking him.[16] | |||||