This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Considering that the CA thereby affirmed the trial court's findings of fact, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight, as well as its conclusions, the Court accords high respect, if not conclusive effect, to the CA's findings.[12] The justification for this is that trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses by virtue of its firsthand observation of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses under grilling examination. The only time when a reviewing court was not bound by the trial court's assessment of credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case.[13] No such fact or circumstance has been brought to the Court's attention. | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| That Ochinang's testimony is at variance with his Sworn Statement[48] does not persuade us to rule that Ochinang should be discredited as a witness. Taan points out that on the witness stand, Ochinang testified that after the drinking spree, he was with the rest of the group when they met Ladaga; while in his Sworn Statement, Ochinang stated that after parting ways with his drinking mates, he was about to cross a river by means of a foot bridge when he saw Taan and Marquez holding Ladaga.[49] We believe, however, that the alleged inconsistencies are trivial and insignificant and refer only to minor details and as such, do not impugn Ochinang's credibility. Discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a witness's affidavit and testimony do not necessarily impair his credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating officer.[50] Between the ex-parte affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the latter commands greater weight particularly when the defense had the full opportunity to cross-examine the witness.[51] | |||||