This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's factual findings, especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[51] This Court has repeatedly recognized that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath.[52] These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth.[53] The appellate courts will generally not disturb such findings unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[54] In this case, none of these circumstances are present. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| indications they were on friendly terms; as in fact they were even kumpadres. No one knew nor expected that when the accused momentarily excused himself, it was for the purpose of looking for a knife, and without any warning, stabbing the victim who was sleeping. There is treachery when the attack is upon an unconscious victim who could not have put up any defense whatsoever,[14] or a person who was dead drunk and sleeping on a bench and had no chance to defend himself.[15] Clearly, the | |||||
|
2001-01-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As to the first alleged flaw, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrator of the crime will not impair the credibility of the witness, if such delay is sufficiently explained. [8] It is not uncommon for witnesses to the commission of crimes to show reluctance in volunteering information thereon and getting involved in criminal investigations. [9] This is especially true when family members are the assailants. [10] In this case, the lone eyewitness, Benny Reoveros, is related by affinity to accused-appellant, the latter's wife being the sister of Benny's mother. Appellant himself admitted that he was highly respected by the eyewitness [11] and knows no reason why the latter would testify against him. [12] Indeed, the defense showed no reason why Reoveros would falsely implicate Paraiso in a despicable and grave offense as rape with homicide. As the Solicitor General correctly cites, "where there is no evidence and nothing indicates that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit." [13] Absent a corrupt intent, Reoveros' close relationship to and respect for appellant sufficiently explain his delay in identifying the latter as the wrongdoer. | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We cannot sustain accused-appellants. The unbending jurisprudence is that findings of trial courts on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. Barrameda's plea of defense of a relative and Belga's denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witness Romeo Barsaga of the two (2) accused-appellants as the armed malefactors who simultaneously attacked and killed the unarmed Ruperto Dizon. This Court is not convinced that Romeo Barsaga falsely testified against accused-appellants as no evil motive was attributed to him. Detailed testimony about a murder which could not have been concocted is highly qualitative.[5] In this case, the detailed narration of Barsaga acquires greater weight and credibility against all the defenses of accused-appellants, especially because it jibed with the autopsy findings.[6] Where there was no showing of improper motive on the part of witness Romeo Barsaga for testifying against both accused-appellants, his testimony must be considered worthy of full faith and credit. | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. The unbending jurisprudence is that the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, especially if affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. We are not convinced that the prosecution witnesses falsely testified against petitioner as no evil motives were attributed to them. Further, the detailed testimony of eyewitness Jenny Camacho acquires greater weight and credibility against the mere alibi of petitioner, especially because her testimony jibed with the autopsy findings.[8] The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, in the absence of any showing of improper motives on their part, must be accorded full faith and credit. | |||||