This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On more than one occasion, we have ruled that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight.[10] This is because the trial judge has the distinct advantage of closely observing the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the manner in which they testify, and is in a better position to determine whether or not they are telling the truth.[11] On that score alone, Diwa's appeal ought to have been dismissed outright. | |||||
|
2002-09-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Mangubat. She contends that: (1) It was the Court of Appeals that supplied the crucial details and appreciated the evidence in favor of the accused Deutsch to justify her exculpation from the crime charged, despite the paucity thereof. (2) The finding of conspiracy cannot apply merely to Demeterio and Mangubat without including Deutsch, in gross violation of the basic jurisprudence that, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[11] (3) It was accused Deutsch who was an active participant in the conspiracy if not the most guilty of the crime charged, for without her, the petitioner would not have been defrauded of a substantial amount of money and would not have suffered irreparable damage such that the crime of estafa would not have arisen at all.[12] Petitioner rationalizes that between the decision of the Court of Appeals and that of the trial court, it is the latter's decision that should prevail since it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and behavior of the witnesses and was in a better position to weigh | |||||