This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-01-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great respect is accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court. It is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility of a witness, having heard his testimony and observed his deportment and manner of testifying.[39] But, where there is a showing that the trial court overlooked material and relevant facts, which could affect the outcome of a case,[40] the Court will not hesitate to set aside the lower court's findings and assessments regarding the credibility of witnesses. | |||||
|
2000-07-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the failure of a witness to report immediately a crime he had witnessed does not affect his credibility. It is not unusual for a witness to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case and such natural reticence of most people is of judicial notice. The witness may also be threatened.[12] For this reason, the delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily weaken the credibility of a witness.[13] But, in this case, the delay of seven months was not satisfactorily explained, especially considering the fact that the deceased was a friend of the witness. These circumstances distinguish this case from those cases[14] cited by the prosecution to explain the failure of Sonio to come out earlier and implicate accused-appellants in the crime. | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This Court generally accords respect to the factual findings of the trial court judge, considering that the latter has the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and determine by their demeanor on the stand the probative value of their testimonies.[9] There are exceptions to this rule, however, such as, where the record shows that facts and circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied by the trial court which, if considered, would have affected the result of the case, or when such findings are arbitrary.[10] | |||||
|
2000-05-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The contention is untenable. Needless to say, the issue of credibility of witnesses is best left to the determination of the trial court since the latter has the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor on the stand.[8] Consequently, only if it is clearly shown that the trial court's findings are arbitrary or that the judge overlooked certain facts which, if considered, will affect the outcome of the case, will this Court set aside such findings.[9] | |||||