This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Further, from its vantage point, a trial court can observe first hand how a complainant carries herself as she testifies -- whether her eyes are shifty, steady or cast down in shame; her voice resolute, hesitant or faltering; her movement natural or affected. It is for this reason that when it finds a complainant credible and her testimony truthful, its factual findings are reviewed only according to the following parameters: first, the reviewing court will not disturb such factual finding of the trial court unless there is a showing that the latter had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case; second, the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of the witness is entitled to great weight and respect since it had the opportunity to examine the latter's demeanor when testifying; third, a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[88] These parameters are even more stringently applied when the factual findings of the trial court have been affirmed by the appellate court.[89] | |||||
|
2007-08-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The trial court, after having observed AAA's categorical, frank and spontaneous testimony, found her to be a credible witness. We find no reason to overturn such a finding. The findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect since it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand.[18] | |||||