This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It must be pointed out right off that the petitioner would have this Court review the uniform factual findings of the courts below, an exercise which necessarily entails evaluating the credence accorded by them on AAA's account of her sordid experience in the hands of petitioner. It is a hornbook rule, however, that factual determinations of trial courts when substantiated by evidence on record carry great weight and respect on appeal. It is not the function of this Court in a petition for review to evaluate evidence all over again,[20] save in exceptional circumstances, such as where the findings of the trial court and the CA are absurd, contrary to the evidence on record, impossible, capricious or arbitrary, or based on a misappreciation of facts.[21] The extant case does not fall under the exceptions to this general rule. It is germane to state, however, that the Court has assumed an attitude of caution and circumspection in evaluating testimonies in rape cases, bearing in mind the familiar dictum that an accusation for rape can be made with facility, albeit difficult to prove, but more difficult for the accused to disprove, though innocent. | |||||
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Both parties concede that this issue is factual. It is a basic rule that factual issues are beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review, for it is not our function to review evidence all over again.[17] Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be raised in this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.[18] The reason is that the Court is not a trier of facts.[19] However, the rule is subject to several exceptions.[20] Under these exceptions, the Court may delve into and resolve factual issues, such as in cases where the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are absurd, contrary to the evidence on record, impossible, capricious or arbitrary, or based on a misappreciation of facts. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The CA committed no reversible error in affirming the Decision of the RTC. Rosendo was not deprived of his day on court. He was given the opportunity to clearly present his side during the trial. The Court notes that the alleged negligence of Rosendo's counsel, if there was any, was not so gross or appalling that it amounted to denial of his right to counsel. Based on the findings of facts of the RTC, as sustained by the CA, the evidence of Rosendo's culpability was overwhelming and his claim of self-defense was highly improbable. It is only when the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are absurd, contrary to the evidence on record, impossible, capricious, arbitrary, or based on a misappreciation of facts that this Court may delve into and resolve factual issues.[28] Not one of these circumstances is present in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| (4) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties.[32] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
PANGANIBAN, C.J. |
||||
| crime, and 4) that act related to the exercise of official duties.[33] Hernandez claims that the prosecution failed to show his involvement in the crime. Allegedly, he was merely implementing Mission Order No. 93-04-12, which required him to investigate Takao Aoyagi.[34] The passport was supposed to have been voluntarily | |||||