This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-12-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The exception to the rule is when the trial court overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[33] In the first and second assignment of errors, the accused Mendoza attempts to place the present case under the mantle of this exception. Thus, the defense points out that Christopher Huidem was celebrating his birthday and was continuously drinking intoxicating liquor for eight hours from March 21, 1997 up to midnight before the shooting incident took place at about 3:00 a.m. This leads the defense to the conclusion that Christopher was too drunk and sleepy to have identified the accused as the triggerman.[34] We cannot subscribe to the accused Mendoza's contention. Although Christopher admitted that he drank liquor while celebrating his birthday, he likewise testified that he did not drink too much and that he could still get hold of himself. He still had the sense to remember the shooting of his best friend, Antonio. On the other hand, the defense's assertion of Christopher's extreme drunkenness is merely a conclusion which does not find support from the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2000-03-27 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In reviewing the present case, the Court adheres to the well-settled rule that the trial judge is best suited to assess the probity and trustworthiness of witnesses because he has the opportunity to observe directly their behavior and manner of testifying.[39] As eloquently stated by the Court in People v. Agbayani:[40] | |||||