This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-04-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The calibration of evidence and the relative weight thereof belongs to the appellate court.[16] Its findings and conclusions cannot be set aside by this Court unless there is no evidence on record to support them.[17] In this case, however, the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan, affirming the factual findings of the RTC, were amply supported by evidence and the conclusions therein were not against the law and jurisprudence. There is no reason to disturb the congruent findings of the trial and appellate courts. | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it should be stated that as a general rule, the Court will not entertain petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which raise questions of fact, as its power of judicial review is confined only to errors of law. Considering, however, that the CA and the RTC came up with contradictory findings with that of the MeTC, the Court is now constrained to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence presented in the proceedings below, as it is clearly an exception to the general rule.[18] | |||||