Assessment of the credibility of witnesses
The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the
trial court.[1] All questions
bearing on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed by the trial court by
virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often incommunicable
evidence of the witnesses' deportment while testifying, something which is
denied to the appellate court because of the nature and function of its office.
The trial judge has the unique advantage of actually examining the
real and testimonial evidence,
particularly the
demeanor of the witnesses
Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings
of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any
substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and
conclusion, like when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have
been overlooked or disregarded, the
reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has
concurred with the trial court.[2]
Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings
of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any
substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and
conclusion, like when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have
been overlooked or disregarded, the
reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has
concurred with the trial court.[2]
[1] People v. Abaigar, G.R. No. 199442, April 7, 2014: People v. Bisda,
G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003
[2] People v. Barcela, G.R. No. 208760, April 23, 2014