This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court has, time and again, deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation. The trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination; the trial court is in a unique position to assess the witnesses' Credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[22] And in the instant case, accused-appellant has not projected any strong and compelling reasons to sway the Court into rejecting or revising such factual findings and evaluation in his favor. | |||||
|
2015-07-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With regard to the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the Court has time and again abided by the principle that factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate and reexamine evidence that had been analyzed and ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by the CA. Moreover, the supposed inconsistencies of witnesses in recounting the wordings of the threats uttered by petitioner, are much too trivial and inconsequential to put a dent on said witnesses' credibility. As ruled in People v. Cabtalan,[20] "[m]inor inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime."[21] Both the trial court and the CA found the prosecution witnesses' candid and straight forward testimony to be worthy of belief and this Court sees no reason why it should not conform to the principle reiterated in Medina, Jr. v. People[22] that:Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation. This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[23] | |||||