This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The first set is factual. Petitioners seek to establish a set of facts contrary to the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts. However, as well established in our jurisprudence, only errors of law are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45.[17] The trial court, having had the opportunity to personally observe and analyze the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, is in a better position to pass judgment on their credibility.[18] More importantly, factual findings of the trial court, when amply supported by evidence on record and affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal.[19] While there are exceptional circumstances[20] when these findings may be set aside, none of them is present in this case. | |||||
|
2004-03-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The well-entrenched rule is that an appellate court will generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses[27] considering that trial court judges would naturally be in a much better position than the appellate court | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Well-established is the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great weight and respect, even finality, on appeal unless the trial court has failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the case.[13] We have thoroughly reviewed the records of this case and we see no compelling reason to depart from this well-settled rule. | |||||
|
2001-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court has repeatedly held that the entirety of a witness' testimony must be considered, and not truncated portions thereof.[27] Facts imperfectly stated in answer to one question may be supplied by his answer to another and, when from one statement considered by itself as inference may be deduced, that inference may be strengthened or repelled by facts disclosed in another.[28] Had this been done by accused-appellant, he would not have claimed that the trial court gave credence to testimony that is contrary to logic if not to human experience. | |||||
|
2001-04-20 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| We hold that the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods of forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[47] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[48] The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[49] | |||||
|
2001-03-05 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods of forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[22] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the atack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[23] In the present case the victim did not even have an inkling of the danger to his life, the attack against him being sudden and unexpected. The prosecution has effectively shown that the shooting was calculated as to ensure the infliction of the fatal wounds without giving the victim and his family any opportunity to put up a defense. The qualifying circumstance of treachery having been likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of murder. | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The defense presented three (3) witnesses to refute the testimony of sole prosecution eyewitness Arnold Fabello. We examined the transcript of Arnold Fabello's testimony and found that it indeed remained consistent and straightforward even during cross-examination. The trial court did not err in giving full credence to Arnold Fabello's testimony. It is well-settled that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, such that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused.[9] Criminals are convicted, not on the number of witnesses against them, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.[10] | |||||