This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-03-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Needless to stress, we have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused hinges on the issue of the credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court, when duly supported by sufficient and convincing evidence, must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by this Court and are not to be disturbed on appeal.[17] Appellants have not shown any cogent reason why we should reverse the findings of both courts below. Their petition must, therefore, fail. | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| First, whether Robin's testimony is credible. As this Court has consistently said, where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of the credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the CA affirming those of the trial court, duly supported by sufficient and convincing evidence, must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by this Court, and are not to be disturbed on appeal.[30] The only exception is when certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[31] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the assessment made by the RTC, duly affirmed by the CA anent the credibility of the said prosecution witnesses who testified during the trial of this case. Michael and Angelo clearly pointed out their exact location and the surrounding circumstances when they observed the petitioner and the felonious taking. Upon the directive of the trial court judge, Angelo even described his location and the respective distances of the houses in the neighborhood by walking around the courtroom.[35] It bears stressing that full weight and respect to the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is usually accorded by the appellate courts, since the trial court judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.[36] This Court is not a trier of facts and, as a rule, we do not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[37] Thus, in the case of Siccuan v. People,[38] we clearly held: We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not be ordinarily disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts of circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe 'the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths. It had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Furthermore, Michael and Angelo are child witnesses. A child witness could not be expected to give a precise response to every question posed to him. His failure to give an answer to the point of being free of any minor inconsistencies is understandable and does not make him a witness less worthy of belief.[39] Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declarations or the veracity or the weight of their testimonies. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the accused.[40] To this Court, Michael and Angelo's testimonies are sufficiently and consistently credible as to establish that: (1) the crime of Theft was committed against the Lipaycos and (2) petitioner committed the said crime. | |||||
|
2007-09-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| This Court is not the proper forum from which to secure a re-evaluation of factual issues, except only where the factual findings of the trial court do not find support in the evidence on record or where the judgment appealed from was based on a misapprehension of facts.[31] None of the exceptions obtains in this case, thus; we find no compelling reason to depart from the rule. | |||||
|
2006-11-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is limited to reviewing only errors of law not of fact.[7] The rationale of this rule is founded on the fact that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[8] However, as exceptions to this rule, the Court may pass upon questions of fact in a petition for review when, among others: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence; and (6) the findings of fact are contradicted by evidence on record.[9] The Court finds that the present case does not fall under any of the foregoing exceptions. Thus, on this ground alone, the instant petition should be dismissed. | |||||
|
2006-04-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, such as the one at bar, is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact.[15] The rationale of this rule is founded on the fact that the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court.[16] | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| This holding confirms the findings of fact of the RTC. Settled is the rule that on questions of the credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect.[21] It was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the manner in which the witnesses had testified; as well as their furtive glances, calmness, sighs, and scant or full realization of their oaths.[22] It had the better opportunity to observe them firsthand; and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.[23] | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| This holding confirms the findings of fact of the RTC. Settled is the rule that on questions of the credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect.[21] It was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the manner in which the witnesses had testified; as well as their furtive glances, calmness, sighs, and scant or full realization of their oaths.[22] It had the better opportunity to observe them firsthand; and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.[23] | |||||