This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-10-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the settled rule is that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[29] Without any clear showing that the trial court and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, the rule should not be disturbed.[30] | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that "when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court."[40] | |||||
|
2012-02-01 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Case laws mandate that "when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court."[21] There is no compelling reason for us to depart from the general rule in this case. | |||||
|
2011-08-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[23] | |||||
|
2010-09-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Minella Alarcon, who was then with her son-in-law on board her white KIA Pride, was following the victim's car (at other side or diagonal line) at the time of the incident. After the shooting, two (2) of the armed men who fired at the victim's car approached their car and pounded at it saying "Baba...Baba!" Terrified, she and her son-in-law got off and crawled towards the side of the street. The assailants then boarded the KIA Pride and went away to the direction of an alley along Katipunan Avenue. Her car was later recovered, as it was found abandoned along Aguinaldo Street near the corner of J.P. Rizal Street, Project 4, Quezon City, still with bloodstains on the car door.[11] | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Next, petitioner points out the supposed inconsistencies in Gonzales' affidavit and his testimony in court. Petitioner harps on the fact that in Gonzales' Affidavit[17] dated February 1, 1997, he said that "two unidentified men arrived" while he testified in court that even before that fateful night, he had seen petitioner around Barangay Mansilingan, and he used to see accused Cabiles everytime his passenger jeepney passed by the road junction.[18] An examination of the records reveal that the alleged inconsistencies are more apparent than real. The statement in Gonzales' affidavit calling the two accused as "two unidentified men" does not foreclose the fact that the affiant is familiar with the faces of the assailants but cannot identify them by their names. In fact, in his affidavit, Gonzales already mentioned that he remembered seeing accused Cabiles before as the latter had a scar on his face. As stated in Decasa v. Court of Appeals,[19] to wit: x x x [T]his Court had consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects to justify a reversal of judgment. Such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are almost always incomplete. A sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Sworn statements taken ex parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court. | |||||
|
2009-08-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In any case, it is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case in its entirety to decide it on the basis of the records on hand.[18] He can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes and calibrate the testimonies of witnesses in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.[19] | |||||