This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-02-23 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The trial court accorded more credence to Mik's narration of the events over the testimonies of Cabano and Loyola. It is a cornerstone of our jurisprudence that the trial judge's evaluation of the testimony of a witness and its factual findings are accorded not only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some weighty circumstance has been ignored or misunderstood which could alter the result of the judgment rendered. In the case at bar, there is no irregularity in the assessment of evidence by the lower court. It granted utmost credibility to Mik's testimony. Given the direct opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, the trial judge was in a vantage position to assess his demeanor and determine if he was telling the truth or not.[43] The trial court found Mik's testimony more worthy of credence over those of Catalina and Loyola. We have no reason to reverse its findings. | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| After a careful review of the records, we find no reason to deviate from the settled rule that the Court will not alter the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses,[25] unless there are circumstances which it overlooked that would change its findings or modify its conclusions. As a rule, appellate courts generally rely on the findings and observations of the trial judge who directly evaluated the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand and who was in a better position to decide the question.[26] | |||||
|
2003-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| For one, it is well entwined into the bedrock of our jurisprudence that the trial judge's evaluation of the testimony of a witness and its factual findings are accorded not only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some weighty circumstance has been ignored or misunderstood which could alter the result of the judgment rendered. Given the direct opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, the trial judge was in a vantage position to assess his demeanor and determine if he was telling the truth or not.[13] Thus:"In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict."[14] For another, complainant never wavered in her assertion that appellant raped her. Her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing. Indeed, the fact of rape and the identity of appellant as the malefactor were sufficiently and convincingly established by the prosecution through her straightforward narration, thus: | |||||