This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, we find that the Condes' account of the incident is persuasive. Both the CA-Cebu and the RTC found that the testimonies of the Condes were credible and presented in a clear and convincing manner. This Court has consistently put much weight on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the appellate court.[14] In People v. Mangune,[15] we stated that: It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity [to] take advantage of these aids.[16] | |||||
|
2011-01-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The RTC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The CA modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua in view of RA 9346, "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines." There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the penalty for murder should be imposed in its medium period or reclusion perpetua.[38] The modification of the penalty by the CA was proper. | |||||
|
2009-10-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The execution of Bagasan's affidavit four months after the incident should not be taken against her, as such reaction is within the bounds of expected human behavior. Notably, the police report stated that during the conduct of the investigation, Bagasan was shocked after the incident and could not possibly be interviewed. 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.[34] Bagasan's action revealed a spontaneous and natural reaction of a person who had yet to fully comprehend a shocking and traumatic event.[35] 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.[36] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's reliance on the testimony of eyewitness Maria. Findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[39] Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial court's findings are even accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[40] It must also be emphasized that, here, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[41] | |||||