This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2001-01-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Axiomatic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts are accorded the highest respect and are generally not disturbed by the appellate court, unless they are found to be clearly arbitrary or unfounded, or some substantial fact or circumstance that could materially affect the disposition of the case was overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted. [15] This rule is founded on the fact that the trial judge has the unique opportunity to personally observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand, which are significant factors in evaluating their honesty, sincerity and credibility. Through its direct observations in the entire proceedings, the judge can be expected to reasonably determine whose testimony to accept and which witness to disbelieve. [16] On the other hand, the reviewing magistrate has none of the advantages peculiar to the trial judge's position, and could rely only on the cold records of the case and on the judge's discretion. [17] In the present case, we find no reason to deviate from these rules. | |||||
|
2000-03-16 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| On May 17, 1995, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing Order with prayer for the consolidation of Crim. Case No. 20574 with Crim. Case Nos. 20185, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098,[14] which are allegedly pending reinvestigation by the Office of the Ombudsman.[15] | |||||
|
2000-01-27 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| On July 3, 1990, Arle Realty Development Corporation (hereafter Arle) filed a similar petition with the Court of Appeals[12] praying for the annulment of the same order of the Regional Trial Court. Arle claimed ownership of six (6) lots covered by TCT No. 263984 to 263989, which had overlapped TCT No. 348292 covering Lot No. 777. | |||||