This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-09-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellants, however, express doubt on whether Marivic Rodelas could positively identify, much less physically describe, appellants Ernesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy considering that at the time of the incident, she was already in a state of fear, and that her bedroom was not well illuminated. In essence, appellants question the credibility of Marivic Rodelas as a witness. However, we find no cogent reason to set aside the trial court's findings on the credibility of Marivic Rodelas. As repeatedly held, matters concerning the credibility of a witness are best addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court. It is well-settled that appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court's assessment in this regard, absent any indication or showing that the trial court has overlooked some material facts of substance or value, or gravely abused its discretion. The matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of accused's behavior, demeanor, conduct, and attitude at the trial.[39] Here, the witness Marivic Rodelas was able to positively identify in open court (1) Cesario Murphy as the one who poked a knife at her neck and who had an uncovered face with no T-shirt on, which showed the scars on his stomach; and (2) Ernesto Sabiyon as the cross-eyed | |||||