This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-01-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In The Ombudsman v. Jurado,[21] the Court has clarified that although the Constitution guarantees the right to the speedy disposition of cases, such speedy disposition is a flexible concept. To properly define that concept, the facts and circumstances surrounding each case must be evaluated and taken into account. There occurs a violation of the right to a speedy disposition of a case only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are sought and secured, or when, without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[22] It is cogent to mention that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not determinant of the concept.[23] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As oft repeated by this Court, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies. The trial judge therefore can better determine if such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.[39] Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the said findings,[40] and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.[41] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well-established that findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in the case at bar.[23] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that although the Constitution guarantees the right to the speedy disposition of cases, it is a flexible concept. Due regard must be given to the facts and circumstances surrounding each case. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[11] Just like the constitutional guarantee of "speedy trial," "speedy disposition of cases" is a flexible concept. It is consistent with delays and depends upon the circumstances. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.[12] | |||||