Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROGER FEDERICO Y BUNGGAO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 152527 2005-10-20	JOEY GUIYAB Y DANAO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
As a rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of a witness, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked, or the significance of which has been misinterpreted or misapprehended.[8] That general rule holds true in this case.
	GR No. 139351 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN QUISUMBING, J.
We reiterate that the findings of fact and the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness's deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied the appellate court.[37] In the instant case, no compelling reason exists to disturb the trial court's conclusion upholding the credibility of Mylene's testimony.
	GR No. 148810 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We have consistently held that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. The trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[17] No such fact or circumstance obtains in the case at bar.