Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUBEN LASCANO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 176354 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Well settled is the doctrine that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could reverse a judgment of conviction. In fact, in some instances, such findings are even accorded finality. This is so because the assignment of value to a witness' testimony is essentially the domain of the trial court, not to mention that it is the trial judge who has the direct opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness on the stand, thus providing him unique facility in determining whether or not to accord credence to the testimony or whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[18]
	GR No. 184792 2009-10-12	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELA CRUZ Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
As a matter of settled jurisprudence, the Court generally defers to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witness and their testimonies, for it is in a better position to decide questions of credibility having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their attitude and deportment during trial.[18] Accordingly, a finding on the credibility of witnesses, as here, with respect to the testimony of Anthony and Zenaida, deserves a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could reverse a judgment of conviction.[19] None of the exceptions exists in this case.
	GR No. 171951 2009-08-28	AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
The present petition was brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, yet, petitioner raises questions of fact. Indeed, it is opportune to reiterate that this Court is not the proper forum from which to secure a re-evaluation of factual issues, save 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.[16] Neither exception applies in the instant case as would justify a departure from the established rule.
	GR No. 180594 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. VS.ISMAEL MOKAMMAD NACHURA, J.
Appellants were positively identified by three (3) of the surviving victims as among the perpetrators of the ambush against them. Both the trial court and the appellate court found their testimonies credible. It is doctrinal that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, which could reverse a judgment of conviction. In fact, in some instances, such findings are even accorded finality. This is so because the assignment of value to a witness' testimony is essentially the domain of the trial court, not to mention that it is the trial judge who has the direct opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness on the stand, thus providing him unique facility in determining whether or not to accord credence to the testimony or whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[17]
	GR No. 181901 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. EMILIO MANCHU NACHURA, J.
In this case, both the trial court and the appellate court found Enerito's testimony credible. It is doctrinal that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could reverse a judgment of conviction. In fact, in many instances, such findings are even accorded finality. This is so because the assignment of value to a witness' testimony is essentially the domain of the trial court, not to mention that it is the trial judge who has the direct opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness on the stand, which opportunity provides him the unique facility in determining whether or not to accord credence to the testimony or whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[18]
	GR No. 177299 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. CHARLITO TUMULAK NACHURA, J.
Regalada positively identified the appellant as the culprit. Both the trial court and the appellate court found her testimony credible. It is doctrinal that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could reverse a judgment of conviction. In fact, in some instances, such findings are even accorded finality. This is so because the assignment of value to a witness' testimony is essentially the domain of the trial court, not to mention that it is the trial judge who has the direct opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness on the stand which opportunity provides him unique facility in determining whether or not to accord credence to the testimony or whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[12]