This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The time-tested rule is that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected because of its unique advantage of having observed their demeanor as they testified.[27] Equally established is the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when such findings affirm those of the trial court,[28] as in this case. This Court refrains from disturbing the CA's findings, if no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of facts can be gleaned from them.[29] We have no reason to depart from this rule. Hence, we affirm the lower courts' assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| After a cursory reading of the transcripts, however, we find that the supposed inconsistent and inaccurate details are relatively trivial and do not affect the veracity of the testimonies of Marlon Tugadi, Jun Quipay, Pepito Tugadi and Raymund Fontanilla. Indeed, inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies even manifest truthfulness and candor, and erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[17] | |||||