This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-11-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court generally defers to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witness and their testimonies, for it is in a better position to decide questions of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their attitude and deportment during trial.[10] In the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which would alter a conviction, we are doctrinally bound by the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses.[11] The application of this rule becomes even more stringent when such findings are sustained by the appellate court,[12] as in the present case. | |||||