This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Besides, said inconsistencies cannot affect "AAA's" credibility especially so when the RTC and the CA have already held that her testimony was straightforward, credible, and spontaneous. The rule is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect especially if affirmed by the CA.[18] The reason behind this is that trial courts have firsthand account of the witnesses' demeanor and deportment in court during trial.[19] "The Court shall not supplant its own interpretation of the testimonies for that of the trial judge since he is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility"[20] of witnesses being the one who had face-to-face interaction with the same. "[I]n the absence of misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion of the court a quo, and especially when the findings of the judge have been adopted and affirmed by the CA, [as in this case,] the factual findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed."[21] | |||||