This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-01-30 |
|||||
| On the second issue, it has been repeatedly held generally that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by this Court in a petition for review; they are final and conclusive on us if they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence.[16] Moreover, in this case, petitioner did not show any of the exceptional circumstances enumerated in the rules and jurisprudence whereby a review is permitted, as for example: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmise or conjecture; (2) When the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; (3) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) When the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admission of both appellants and appellees; (7) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are at variance with those of the trial court, the Supreme Court has to review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the record; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; (10) The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) When certain material facts and circumstances had been overlooked by the trial court which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case in that they would introduce an element of reasonable doubt which would entitle the accused to acquittal.[17] | |||||