This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-02-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In overturning the finding of the trial court, the Court of Appeals credited the testimony of Magno, who testified as a hostile witness for Loreta, that Lelia sent him to Loreta's house to secure her signature on the loan documents in blank, and that Loreta did not receive any proceeds of the loan.[32] The Court of Appeals did not proffer any reason, however, for deviating from the trial court's assessment of Magno's credibility, [33] despite the oft-repeated doctrine that "findings of fact of the trial court carry great weight and are entitled to respect on appeal absent any strong and cogent reason to the contrary, since, it is in a better position to decide the question of credibility of witnesses." [34] Furthermore, Magno's testimony should be received with caution because it contradicts the earlier statements he had made under oath, such as the Counter-Affidavit [35] and Rejoinder[36] he filed in I.S. No. 88-498 and his verification of the joint Answer with Counterclaim he and KLII filed in Civil Case No. D-9136.[37] | |||||
|
2005-06-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Self-defense, as espoused by petitioner, can be so readily claimed by an accused even if false. It is normally asserted with promptness if true so that the failure to do so upon surrendering to the police is inconsistent with the claim of self-defense.[16] The records clearly show that petitioner gave no indication that he acted in self-defense when he surrendered to the police more than two months after the killing.[17] And before they testified in court, neither his wife nor sister-in-law ever mentioned that Sullon acted in self-defense.[18] Nestor Sullon by his own testimony also disclosed that he fled to Mlang, North Cotabato and stayed there for two months and eleven days from the time of the commission of the offense until his voluntary surrender on December 7, 1993.[19] His act of fleeing from the scene of the crime instead of reporting the incident to the police authorities is contrary to his proclaimed innocence.[20] Self-defense is not credible in the face of the flight of petitioner-accused from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities about the incident.[21] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Such lack of evidence renders incredible the prosecution's accusation that Galabo inflicted blows on Gloria. Physical evidence is mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth and rates highly in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.[27] It enjoys a far more superior probative weight than corroborative testimonies.[28] In this case, the absence of physical injuries and medical findings negate Gloria's claim that she was hit by petitioner Galabo. | |||||
|
2003-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Once again, we reiterate the rule that findings of fact of the trial court carry great weight and are entitled to respect on appeal absent any strong and cogent reason to the contrary, since it is in a better position to decide the question of credibility of witnesses. In the determination of the veracity of the testimony, the assessment by the trial court is accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is seen to have acted arbitrarily or with evident partiality. [18] We find no reason to reverse the conclusions of the trial court as regards the guilt of the appellants. | |||||