This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-05-29 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that the factual findings of the trial judge is entitled to respect if not finality, considering that the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses. In People vs. Villaver,[20] the Court reiterated:In resolving an issue on the credibility of a witness, the Court must yield to the oft-repeated rule which holds that the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of a witness is accorded great weight. The Court, more than once, has explained that it should rightly give the trial court a wide latitude of assigning values to testimonial evidence because of its unique opportunity to so observe the witnesses on the stand as they testify. The trial court is aided by various indicia that could not be readily seen on record. The witness' manner of giving an answer, like the hesitant pause, the nervous voice, the undertone, the befuddled look, the honest gaze, the modest blush, or the guilty blanch, somehow can reveal if really the witness is telling the truth or weaving a web of lies. Unless, then, any fact or circumstance of significance and influence appears to have been overlooked or misconstrued, its findings on the credibility of witnesses should not be interfered with. The Court finds no reason to reverse the factual findings of the lower court. The testimony of Marlon Leonardo, straight and categorical, is worthy of credence, thus: | |||||