This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-04-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Further, it is settled that findings of fact of the trial court are accorded greatest respect by the appellate court absent any abuse of discretion.[24] There being no abuse of discretion in this case, we affirm the factual findings of the trial court. | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| No error, in our view, was committed by the appellate court in this regard. As previously held,[46] entries in the police blotter, though regularly done in the course of the performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries and should not be given undue significance or probative value, for they are usually incomplete and inaccurate. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. To be admissible in evidence, it is essential that the person who made the entries had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information.[47] In this case, SPO1 Mira merely gathered his information from the four to five bystanders he saw at the store. | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| In interpreting this portion of Zenaida's testimony, appellant contends that Zenaida pointed an accusing finger at him simply because he and her husband had a land dispute and not because she saw appellant shoot Aurelio. However, Zenaida's testimony should be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein.[36] Taken in the context of her whole testimony, Zenaida's avowed admission of her hatred of appellant did not mean that she singled him out as the assailant because of the land dispute and not because she saw him shoot her husband. On the contrary, her manifest hatred for appellant on account of the land dispute did not deter her from telling the truth. Otherwise, she would not have admitted in testimony a fact which would cast a doubt on her sincerity. | |||||