Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARVIN MERCADO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 163705 2007-07-30	NOMER OCAMPO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
The core of Ocampo's arguments in this instant petition is that the findings of the appellate court do not conform to the evidence on record. It should be emphasized that factual matters cannot be raised in a petition for review on certiorari before the Court as this Court is limited to reviewing only questions of law.[29] The findings of fact of the trial court are binding upon this Court when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[30] Exceptions to this rule are when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or are not supported by the evidence on record.[31] Absent any ground to apply the exception to this instant case, there is no reason, therefore, to disturb the findings of the lower courts.
	GR NO. 151890 2006-06-20	PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE v. TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Prefatorily, it must be emphasized that in a petition for review, only questions of law, and not questions of fact, may be raised.[19] This rule may be disregarded only when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or are not supported by the evidence on record.[20] In the case at bar, we find an incongruence between the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the court a quo, thus, in our determination of the issues, we are constrained to assess the evidence adduced by the parties to make appropriate findings of facts as are necessary.
	GR No. 137147 AND GR No. 137148 2003-11-18	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
xxx findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court. This rule may be disregarded only when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or are not supported by the evidence on record. But there is no ground to apply this exception to the instant case. This Court will not assess all over again the evidence adduced by the parties particularly where as in this case the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals completely coincide.[14]