This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-01-18 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Also, the issue hinges on credibility of witnesses. We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not be ordinarily disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case.[14] It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe "the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths."[15] It had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.[16] Inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimony of the victim do not affect the veracity of the testimony if the inconsistencies do not pertain to material points.[17] | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The matter of assigning values to the declarations of witnesses is best and most competently performed by the trial court who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying, and to assess their credibility using various indicia available but not reflected in the records.[25] Hence, the court a quo's appraisal on the matter is entitled to the highest respect, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case.[26] There is no compelling reason in the present case to depart from this rule. | |||||