Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CHITO NAZARENO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 201858 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. JENNY LIKIRAN REYES, J.
Upon review, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, including their assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. Factual findings of the trial court are, except for compelling or exceptional reasons, conclusive to the Court especially when fully supported by evidence and affirmed by the CA.[14]
	GR No. 197360 2013-07-03	PEOPLE v. RONALD CREDO AKA “ONTOG PEREZ, J.
At the outset, it bears repeating that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[21] Except for compelling or exceptional reasons, such as when they were sufficiently shown to be contrary to the evidence on record, the findings of fact of the Regional Trial Court will not be disturbed by this Court.[22] Thus, once a guilty verdict has been rendered, the appellant has the burden of clearly proving on appeal that the lower court committed errors in the appreciation of the evidence presented.[23] Here, there is no showing that the trial court or the Court of Appeals overlooked some material facts or committed any reversible error in their factual findings.
	GR No. 201723 2013-06-13	PEOPLE v. PERCIVAL DELA ROSA Y BAYER REYES, J.
It has been consistently held that factual findings of the trial court are, except for compelling or exceptional reasons, conclusive to the Court especially when fully supported by evidence and affirmed by the CA.[16] The Court finds no cogent reason in this case to disturb the findings and conclusions of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, including their assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.