See - The Other Jimmy Napoles... - The Lawyer's Post
"x x x.
“It has been repeatedly held that, as a rule, the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by this Court if they are borne out by the records or are based on substantial evidence. The factual issues raised by Napoles in this petition, specifically the failure of the NBI to recover the marked money from his possession, the presence of fluorescent powder on his hands, and the alleged violation of his constitutional right when he was arrested by the NBI have all been squarely discussed and fairly settled in the appellate court’s decision.
More importantly, Napoles failed to show any of the exceptional circumstances enumerated in the rules and jurisprudence whereby a review is permitted, namely:
(1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
(2) when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible;
(3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(4) when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellants and appellees;
(7) when the findings of fact of the CA are at variance with those of the trial court, in which case this Court has to review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the record;
(8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by respondents;
(10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record; and
(11) when the trial court has overlooked certain material facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case in that they would introduce an element of reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal.
x x x."
