see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/201449.pdf
"x x x.
[T]he issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of
witness, which is best addressed by the trial court, it being in a better
position to decide such question, having heard the witness and observed
his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. These
are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses
and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting
testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, the
trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion,
whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. Verily, findings
of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless
some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the
disposition of the case. x x x (Citation omitted.)
Thus, it has been an established rule in appellate review that the trial
court’s factual findings – including its assessment of the credibility of the
witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions
drawn from the factual findings – are accorded great respect and even
conclusive effect. These factual findings and conclusions assume greater
weight if they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.42
In this case, the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, gave more
weight and credence to the testimony of Perlie compared to that of accusedappellants and their witnesses. There is no reason for the Court to overturn the judgment of the trial and the appellate courts on the matter.
Perlie is more than just an eyewitness, she is a surviving victim of the
crime. Her testimony, as described by the RTC, was “categorical and
straightforward.”43 Perlie had positively identified both accused-appellants and described specifically the role each played, together with De la Cruz, in the commission of the crime. The physical injuries Perlie and her sister Nely suffered were consistent with Perlie’s account of the events of October 3, 2003. In People v. Pabillano,44 the Court similarly accorded credence and weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially the deceased victim’s son, who gave an eyewitness account of the crime, ratiocinating as follows:
No reason or motive was adduced by appellants why any of the prosecution witnesses should falsely accuse them. Where there is no evidence to show that the principal witnesses for the State were actuated by ill-motive, their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. The natural interest of a witness who is a relative of the victim, (such as Jose Roño, III, the son of Jose Jr.) in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating a person other than the true culprit. Jurisprudence recognizes that victims of criminal violence, such as Jose Roño, III himself, have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them. We have no reason to disturb the trial court’s finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible, and that their identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the
crime has been reliably established. (Citations omitted.),
x x x."
