This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2011-10-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Obviously, the first issue raised by petitioner is purely factual in nature. It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.[16] This doctrine is premised on the undisputed fact that, since the trial court had the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand, it was in a position to discern whether or not they were telling the truth.[17] Moreover, the testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein.[18] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| opportunity to observe the demeanor of these witnesses.[10] The CA did not disturb the RTC's appreciation of their credibility. Thus, the cardinal rule applies that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. | |||||
|
2010-01-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Note that the RTC found all the prosecution witnesses to be credible witnesses, whose testimonies were natural and convincing, thus, deserving of full faith and credence. It bears stressing that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is usually accorded by the appellate courts full weight and respect, since a trial court judge has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.[17] Note, likewise, that the CA did not disturb the RTC's appreciation of their credibility. Thus, we apply the cardinal rule that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA, and we find no justification to deviate from both courts' findings and their unanimous conclusion that appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape.[18] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Appellant could only proffer the defense of denial. Notably, the RTC found VVV and MMM to be credible witnesses, whose testimonies deserve full credence. It bears stressing that full weight and respect are usually accorded by the appellate court to the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.[42] Equally noteworthy is the fact that the CA did not disturb the RTC's appreciation of the witnesses' credibility. Thus, we apply the cardinal rule that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on such findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no reason to deviate from the findings of both courts and their uniform conclusion that appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Other Acts of Child Abuse.[43] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to the claim of accused-appellant that he acted in self-defense, it cannot be appreciated. There is only his testimony that there was an attempt by the victim to stab him, as opposed to the testimonies of the two witnesses presented against him. The credibility of the witnesses had been weighed by the trial court, and it found the testimonies of Marcelino and Ramel to be more convincing. As a rule, the appellate court gives full weight and respect to the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses since the trial court judge has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness.[7] | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| She cannot be faulted for doing what she did. Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness' delay in reporting a crime to the authorities.[43] Initial reluctance to volunteer information regarding a crime due to fear of reprisal is common enough that it has been judicially declared as not affecting a witness' credibility.[44] The fact that Mrs. Bona did not right away submit a written statement to the police was natural and within the bounds of expected human behavior. Her action revealed a spontaneous and natural reaction of a person who had yet to fully comprehend a shocking and traumatic event. Besides, the workings of the human mind are unpredictable. People react differently to emotional stress. There is simply no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a strange, startling or frightful occurrence.[45] In her case, Mrs. Bona said she was shocked and lost her composure because that was the first time she saw someone being killed in front of her.[46] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the trial court was categorical in saying that the prosecution witnesses testified in a candid and straightforward manner. In contrast, Rosendo was uncertain of his answers to the questions propounded to him; thus, the RTC gave no credence to his testimony. Much weight is given to the factual findings of the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies as he is in the best position to observe the demeanor of witnesses during trial.[29] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We also note that as SPO1 Fernandez testified, Pascual's wife and brother told him that Pascual left their house just after dinner on April 15, 2000. It could not have been true then that Pascual was in Lucena City that night. Further, SPO1 Fernandez also testified that when he and the other policemen returned to Pascual's house, the latter's brother informed them that Pascual's wife was fetched by a tricycle at dawn. The fact that Pascual's whereabouts that night could not be accounted for and the police failed to find him despite extensive search, coupled by the surreptitious departure of his wife, is an additional indication of guilt.[27] | |||||