This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-03-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court has previously held that evidence to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself. The evidence must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe. No better test has yet been found to determine the value of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind.[18] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself.[13] The trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that the statements of Taurak and Mamantak did not deserve credence. Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, are accorded great, if not conclusive, value when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[14] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Well established is the doctrine that in the absence of unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.[25] Unlawful aggression is an essential and primary element of self-defense, without it, there can be no self-defense. [26] Appellant's claim thereto is utterly baseless in fact and in law. | |||||