This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, Eduarte invoked his non-flight as an indication of his innocence. We remain unperturbed. Although flight is an indication of guilt, non-flight does not necessarily mean non-guilt or innocence. This judicial doctrine is simply applied to strengthen the evidence of guilt, taking into consideration other corroborative pieces of evidence. It cannot be singularly considered as evidence or as a manifestation determinative of innocence.[21] | |||||
|
2008-11-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Also untenable is accused-appellants' contention that non-flight of the assailants signified innocence. Unlike flight of an accused, which is competent evidence against the accused as having a tendency to establish the accused's guilt, non-flight is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors.[10] It cannot be singularly considered as evidence or as a manifestation determinative of innocence.[11] | |||||
|
2007-05-25 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The Court likewise finds no merit in the alleged ill-motive imputed by appellant on his sister-in law, Estrella Tuazon, whom he claimed to have instigated the filing of the rape charges against him, saying that he and Estrella were not in good terms because he parted ways with Estrella's sister who is the victim's mother. To us, the reason given is too petty a cause to move Estrella to goad her niece to charge her very own father with two (2) counts of rape. Besides, motive is not necessary when, as here, the identity of the wrongdoer is positively identified by the victim herself.[14] | |||||
|
2002-01-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In any case, well-settled is the rule that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter 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. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. 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.[29] Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they are lying.[30] | |||||
|
2002-01-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The time-honored rule is that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance.[5] This Court accords, as a general rule, conclusiveness to a lower court's findings of fact unless it is shown, inter alia, that: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are conflicting.[6] | |||||