This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect[15] and due weight,[16] unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise. In the present case, however, the RTC committed glaring factual oversights that impel us to depart from this general doctrine.[17] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "The Court has scrupulously examined the testimony of the complainant Carla Espayos; it is convinced that the same, even standing alone, passes the test of credibility and may be made the basis of conviction. She was candid and truthful in her narrations, and the Court could not detect any tinge of insincerity in her testimony. There is no doubt that she is telling the truth."[18] There is no reason for us to doubt the assessment by the trial court of the testimony of the victim. In general, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are not disturbed by appellate courts and are treated with much weight and great respect, since it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of those on the stand and was then in a position to discern whether they were telling the truth.[19] Needless to say, its evaluation of their testimony and credibility is binding upon appellate courts, in the absence of a clear showing that it reached such evaluation arbitrarily; or plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. [20] | |||||