This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-06-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless: (1) it is found to be clearly arbitrary or unfounded; (2) some substantial fact or circumstance that could materially affect the disposition of the case was overlooked, misunderstood, or misinterpreted; or (3) the trial judge gravely abused his or her discretion. [15] None of the above circumstances applies to the case at hand. | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Resayo argues that since Judge Demetriou did not hear the entire testimonies of Esteban and Victoria, the rule on non-interference with the determination of the credibility of witnesses does not apply. Indeed, one of the recognized exceptions to this rule is when the judge who penned the decision is not the judge who received the evidence and heard the witnesses.[8] However, the efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that the ponente only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided over the trial. It does not follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision.[9] In the present case, what Judge Demetriou did not hear was the entire testimony of Esteban and the direct examination and partial cross-examination of Victoria, who was the eyewitness that identified Resayo as Aguinaldo's killer. Hence, upon the continuation of Victoria's testimony, Judge Demetriou still had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of Victoria, who pinned Resayo to the crime. As to Esteban's testimony, Judge Demetriou relied upon the transcribed stenographic notes for her decision. Moreover, the full record was available to Judge Demetriou. There is no sufficient showing that she did not thoroughly examine and analyze the evidence before her, particularly the testimonies of both Esteban and Victoria. | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Witness Patenio's failure to report immediately to the proper authority does not impinge on his credibility. This Court has ruled that, when confronted with startling occurences, behavioral responses of witnesses are diverse.[15] Indeed, there is no uniform reaction or standard behavioral response to grisly events.[16] In numerous instances, this Court has declared that the reluctance of eyewitnesses to testify on a crime and to get involved in a criminal investigation are but normal and do not by themselves affect the witnesses' credibility.[17] The sealed lips of said witnesses are but a natural and spontaneous reaction.[18] They may opt to remain silent rather than to imperil their own lives.[19] | |||||