This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In connection therewith, one must not forget the well entrenched rule that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties as well as its conclusion on its findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court to observe, at close range, the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witness as they testify.[18] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[19] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, accused-appellant questioned the findings of facts made by the trial court. In People v. Dumadag,[19] this Court held that well entrenched is the rule that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties as well as its conclusion on its findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court to observe, at close range, the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witness as they testify. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[20] There being no compelling reason to deviate from the findings of both lower courts, we uphold the same. | |||||