This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the instant case, accused-appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression. From a perusal of the trial court's decision, the prosecution's testimonial evidence, notably Leticia's testimony, had been carefully weighed and was found by the trial court to be more credible and convincing than the bare and self-serving testimony of accused-appellant as to who initiated the fight and what transpired after the initial assault ensued.The testimony of a single eyewitness to a killing, if worthy of credence, is sufficient to support a conviction for homicide or murder, as the case may be.[24] It bears stressing that, as a rule, the trial court's factual determinations, especially its assessments of the witnesses' testimony and their credibility, are entitled to great respect, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[25] For having the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while in the witness box, such as their facial expression and the tone of their voice, the trial court is in a better position to address questions of credibility.[26] The trial court's proximate contact with those who take the witness stand places it in a more competent position to discriminate between a true and false testimony.[27] | |||||
|
2005-10-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Anent Mario's defense of alibi, despite corroboration from Exequiel Aranas, it is still an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over a positive identification from a witness found credible by the trial court. Absent arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of significance and influence, we will not interfere with the credence given to the testimony of Wilson over that of Mario and that of Exequiel, as assessments of credibility are generally left to the trial court whose proximate contact with those who take the witness stand places it in a more competent position to discriminate between true and false testimony.[14] Moreover, as correctly discussed by the Court of Appeals, the distance between the scene of the crimes and where Mario claims he passed out is not so far away as to prevent him from being physically present at the place of the crimes or its immediate vicinity at the time the crimes were committed.[15] | |||||
|
2002-02-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| First, it is well-settled that the trial court's assessment of credibility of witnesses is generally accorded great respect because the court had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and observe their demeanor as they testified under oath. Only when the trial court overlooked or misapplied some facts which could have affected the result of the case is trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses reviewed by this Court.[14] In this case, nothing on record shows that this case should fall under the exception. We agree with the trial court in its findings complainant Bing Taberara's testimony was straightforward and convincing, while that of the appellant consisted of bare denials which uncorroborated and self-serving. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| First. It is settled that, because of its opportunity to observe the facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice of a witness who is testifying, the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of a witness is entitled to great respect.[11] The proximate contact of the trial court with those who take the witness stand places it in a more competent position to discriminate between a true and false testimony.[12] In this case, petitioner failed to show that the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. | |||||