This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on the record. Hence, the corollary principle that absent any showing that the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances that would affect the final disposition of the case, appellate courts are bound to give due deference and respect to its evaluation of the credibility of an eyewitness and his testimony as well as its probative value amidst the rest of the other evidence on record.[13] | |||||
|
2014-07-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Both the CA and the trial court have exhaustively discussed the merits of the case at bench and concur on their findings and conclusions. In this connection, it bears repeating that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[8] The rule is that, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on such findings are accorded respect, if not, conclusive effect. This specially holds true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the case at bar, said findings are generally binding upon us. We find no compelling reason in this case to depart from the general rule.[9] | |||||