Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EMELDO 'PAMENTOLAN' OBINA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 200029 2013-11-13	PEOPLE v. BASILIO VILLARMEA Y ECHAVEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In sum, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA when it affirmed the factual findings of the trial court. We have consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court were affirmed by the appellate court.[36] Thus, absent any showing that the trial court in this case had overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case,[37] this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.
	GR No. 187073 2012-03-14	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO CASTRO Y PERALTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and the parties' submissions and find no showing of any errors in law and in findings of fact by the courts a quo. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[6] Everything considered, there is no doubt in our mind that the positive identification of herein appellants by Austria is credible and sufficient for conviction.
	GR No. 188726 2012-01-25	CRESENCIO C. MILLA v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
Finally, Milla assails the factual findings of the trial court. Suffice it to say that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding on and accorded great respect by this Court.[27]
	GR No. 192237 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. JACQUILINE PAMBID Y CORTEZ VELASCO JR., J.
What is more, "the factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal."[31] As aptly held in People v. Obina, "In criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not."[32] Hence, We see no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court.