This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We cannot discern any improper motive on the part of, and no such motive was ever imputed to, the prosecution's witnesses, namely, Michael, Angelo, Conchita and even Rebecca that they would falsely implicate the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime. The absence of evidence as to improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly sustains the conclusion that none existed, and consequently, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[34] | |||||
|
2007-02-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Whether or not demand was made is a question of fact. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[20] Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[21] Inquiry into the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusions is not the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts.[22] Neither is it our function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[23] While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule,[24] none of these exceptions finds application here. | |||||
|
2005-02-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| As a matter of doctrine, we do not disturb the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[12] There are exceptions to this rule but not one of them is present here. As the CA has aptly stated, the party making a material allegation bears the burden of proving it.[13] While the record is replete with documents showing that Jonathan Uy willingly entered into the compromise agreement, it is altogether bereft of even a scintilla of evidence that fraud attended that transaction. | |||||