This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is apt to stress the well-settled principle that factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[21] In the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the evidence on record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand.[22] The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.[23] It is not the function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination.[24] The law creating the CA was intended mainly to take away from the Supreme Court the work of examining the evidence, so that it may confine its task to the determination of questions which do not call for the reading and study of transcripts containing the testimony of witnesses.[25] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is apt to stress the well-settled principle that factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[21] In the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the evidence on record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand.[22] The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.[23] It is not the function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination.[24] The law creating the CA was intended mainly to take away from the Supreme Court the work of examining the evidence, so that it may confine its task to the determination of questions which do not call for the reading and study of transcripts containing the testimony of witnesses.[25] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| An issue is factual when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation.[15] On the other hand, an issue is one of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.[16] | |||||