This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The RTC's appreciation of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies vis-à-vis the defense offered by Loks and the other evidence presented during the proceedings before it deserves respect. It is a well-entrenched principle that "[t]he trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is conclusive on this Court as it is the trial court which had the opportunity to closely observe the demeanor of the witnesses."[19] Further, we explained in People v. Naelga[20]: [I]t should be pointed out that prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court. This Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. This rule is consistent with the reality that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Thus, factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case.[21] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2013-10-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Further, it should be noted that the only defense the accused-appellants proffered was denial. It is established jurisprudence that denial cannot prevail over the witnesses' positive identification of the accused-appellants, more so where the defense did not present convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to have been present at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime.[35] | |||||