410

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Credibility of Witnesses, The Trial Courts Domain

ANNOTATION
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, THE TRIAL COURTS
DOMAIN
By
*
JULIANA C. AZARRAGA
___________________
I. General rule on assessment of credibility, p.
410
II. Exceptions to the rule, p. 413
___________________
So oftenly repeated by this Court is that the matter of assigning
values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most
competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched
opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility
by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. The
demeanor of a person on the stand can draw the line between fact
and fancy. The forthright answer or the hesitant pause, the
quivering voice or the angry tone, the flustered look or the sincere
gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanchthese can reveal if the
witness is telling the truth or lying in his teeth.Martinez, J.

I. General rule on assessment of credibility

In the case of Adzuara vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 657
[1999] where the petitioner maintained that his conviction
in the courts below was based merely on his post collision
conduct, asked the Court to discard the findings of fact of
the trial court and evaluate anew the probative value of the
evidence. In this regard, the Supreme Court, reiterating

the ruling in People vs. Bernal, 254 SCRA 659 [1996].

x x x x It has thus become a persistent monotony for the Court to
hold, since more often than not the challenge relates to the
credibility of witnesses, that it is bound by the prevailing doctrine
founded on a host of jurisprudential rulings, to the effect that the
matter is best determined at
_______________
*

Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 15, Roxas City.

411

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002

411

Credibility of Witnesses, The Trial Courts Domain

the trial court level where testimonies are firsthand given,

received, assessed and evaluated (People vs. Miranda, 235 SCRA
202 [1994]). The findings of the trial court on the credulity of
testimony are generally not disturbed on appeal since significant
focus is held to lie on the deportment of, as well as the peculiar
manner in which the declaration is made by, the witness in open
court (People vs. Dado, 244 SCRA 658) which an appellate court
would be unable to fully appreciate, in the same way that a trial
court can, from the mere reading of the transcript of stenographic
notes. It is only when strong justifications exist that an appellate
court could deny respect to the trial courts findings when, quite
repeatedly said, it is shown that the trial court has clearly
overlooked misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight or substance which could affect the
results of the case (People vs. Flores, 243 SCRA 374 [1995]).

a) Issues of which witnesses and whose testimonies are to be

believed are best addressed by the trial judge.
The issues of which witnesses and whose testimonies are to
be believed are best addressed by the trial judge who had
the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand
and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the
witness stand. Undeniably, these are significant factors in
evaluating a witness sincerity, honesty and credibility
and, in unearthing the truth, especially in the fact of
conflicting testimonies. Because of this direct observations
of the entire proceedings, the trial judge is in the best
position to determine reasonably whose testimonies to

accept and which witnesses to believe or disbelieve (People

vs. Pili, 289 SCRA 118 [1998])
b) Cases.
In the matter of credibility of witnesses, it is doctrinally
settled that factual findings, of the trial court should be
respected because the trial judge is in a better position to
pass judgment on the veracity of witnesses having had the
opportunity to personally hear them, observe their
deportment and manner of testifying, and detect if they
were telling the truth. Thus, We agree with the disquisition
of the court a quo in not giving evidentiary weight to the
testimony of Lucretio Honasas long silence about the
incident without justifiable explanation eroded the
credibility of his claim (People vs. Patalinghug, 318 SCRA
116 [1999]).
412

412

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Credibility of Witnesses, The Trial Courts Domain

We could not agree with the accusedappellants appraisal

of the decision of the trial court. The assessment of factual
matters lies within the province and expertise of the trial
courts. We, more often than not, accord due respect to their
findings absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion.
In the instant case, we find nothing amiss in the factual
assessment by the Court below. That it dwelt lengthily
criticizing the evidence presented by the defense is its own
way of presenting its reasons why it chose to give credence
to the version of the prosecution. Aside from the general
statements and conclusions bereft of any basis, the defense
did not offer any satisfactory proof that the lower court
gravely abused its discretion. (People vs. Galladan, 318
SCRA 569 [1999]).
The trial court convicted appellants on the strength of
the credible testimonies of Nila Francisco Casas and
Antonio Villanueva, Jr., ruling that they had no illmotive
to testify falsely and that their positive assertions prevailed
over the negative statements of the defense witnesses.
Indeed there was no proof that the prosecution witnesses
testified falsely or unbelievably against the accused. Verily,
the fact that Antonio, Jr. was the son of the victim

rendered his testimony more credible. Expectedly, his

primary consideration was to see that justice would be
done hence it would have been unnatural for him to accuse
the wrong persons and thereby the real culprits go free.
Likewise, the trial court was correct in not according
credence to the testimonies of the defense witnesses, which
consisted chiefly of denials. It is axiomatic that negative
assertions cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of
credible witnesses (People vs. Catampongan, 318 SCRA 674
[1999].
The positive identification made by three witnesses that
they saw the accused at the scene of the crime is not
improbable where it appears that he, although officially
committed to a penitentiary, was granted special privileges
and was allowed to leave the prison premises from time to
time. Appellant Obosa himself admitted that he was
allowed to stay a few days outside prison in the house of
one of the prison guards without being reported to the
prison authorities. Needless to state, however, the findings
of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are
accorded the highest respect as the trial judge had the
direct opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses
on the stand (People vs. Obosa, 332 SCRA 643 [2000])
413

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002

413

Credibility of Witnesses, The Trial Courts Domain

II. Exceptions to the rule

Almost as recognized as the general rule is the exception
that the factual findings of the trial court may nonetheless
be reversed by the Court of Appeals if by the evidence on
record or the lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred
(Heirs of Fernando Vinzons vs. Court of Appeals, 315 SCRA
541 [1999]).
a) The exceptions to the rule that findings of the trial
court on credibility of witnesses are generally entitled to
great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal are: (1) it
is found to be clearly arbitrary or unfounded (2) some
substantial fact or circumstance that could materially
affect the disposition of the case was overlooked,

misunderstood or misinterpreted (3) the trial judge gravely

abused his or her discretion or (4) the judge who penned
the appealed decision was not the same one who presided
over the trial and heard the witness testify (People vs.
Pinca, 318 SCRA 270 [1999]).
Thus, where there is a showing that the trial court failed
to appreciate facts and circumstances that would have
altered its conclusion, it is incumbent upon this Court to
correct such mistake (People vs. Desoy, 312 SCRA 432
[1999]).
In the foregoing case, the sole crucial issue was whether
or not the presence of conspiracy has been adequately
proven by the prosecution. The trial court reached the
conclusion that there was conspiracy between the accused
appellants and Elmer Desoy on the premise that their overt
acts clearly showed that they acted in concert in the
pursuit of their unlawful design or common goal which was
to kill the victim. The Supreme Court however ruled that a
perusal of the records will show this observation of the
court a quo to be inaccurate (People vs. Desoy, supra).
Although it is a wellestablished rule that the matter of
credibility lies within the province of the trial court, such
rule does not apply when the witness credibility has been
put in serious doubt, such as when there appears on the
record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence,
which has been overlooked or the significance of which has
been misinterpreted (Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals, 316
SCRA 347 [1999]).
414

414

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Credibility of Witnesses, The Trial Courts Domain

b) When witness is biased.

A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the
cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to
exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to
suppress to pervert the truth, or to state what is false. At
the time the present case was filed, in the trial court in
1981, Justa Kausapin was already 80 years old, suffering
from worsening physical infirmities and completely
dependent upon her stepson Enrique Hemedes for support.

It is apparent that Enrique Hemedes could easily have

influenced his aging stepmother to donate the subject
property to him. Public respondent could not have given
credence to a witness what was obviously biased and
partial to the cause of private respondent (Hemedes vs.
Court of Appeals, supra).
c) When there is misapprehension of facts.
In Heirs of Vinzons vs. Court of Appeals, supra, the
Supreme Court, said: Petitioners rely heavily on the
general rule that the findings of trial courts deserve to be
respected and affirmed by appellate courts considering that
the trial court and the Court of Appeals arrive at a
different factual findings. We have reviewed the evidence
on record and have found as aforesaid, the improper
assumption by the MTC of the case due to nonrecourse to
barangay conciliation and the lapse of the oneyear period
for bringing the case for unlawful detainer.
It is axiomatic that factual findings and conclusions of
trial courts are entitled to great weight and are not to be
disturbed on appeal (People vs. Daquipi, 240 SCRA 314
[1995]). However, this rule speaks of exceptions. Thus,
where there is a showing that the trial court failed to
appreciate facts and circumstances that would have altered
its conclusion, it is incumbent upon this Court to correct
such mistake (People vs. Desoy, 312 SCRA 432 [1999]).
Findings of fact of the trial court are normally sustained
except where the disputed decision is based on
misapprehension of facts (People vs. Bawar, 262 SCRA 325
[1996]).
415

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002

415

Credibility of Witnesses, The Trial Courts Domain

Case:
From a judgment of conviction for rape, for which he was
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the accessory
penalties thereof, accused Bawar sought its reversal on the
ground that the evidence of the prosecution does not
warrant or support the judgment of conviction. The trial
courts decision revealed, that the pronouncement of guilt
was entirely based on the testimony of the complainant

that she was raped, relying upon and giving full credence
thereto. The Supreme Court said it cannot sit easy with the
pronouncement as the evidence on record failed to support
the lower courts findings of fact and conclusions. It said:
Since condition is admitted, the only real issue is whether the
victim gave her consent thereto, the determination of which rests
on the credibility of complainants testimony as the only witness
to the alleged occurrence.
It is a wellsettled doctrine that in crimes against chastity the
testimony of the offended party should not be received with
precipitate credulity (People vs. Graza, 196 SCRA 512 [1991]
People vs. Dulay, 217 SCRA 132 [1993]). It behooves the court to
exercise the greatest degree of care and caution in the
consideration and analysis of a complainants testimony.
We have carefully analyzed the testimony of the complainant
Ubrada which the trial court adjudged to be credible, and find
that her version of the rape incident appears to be implausible, if
not fabricated, preposterous, on crucial points, obviously
contrived, unnatural and not in accordance with the ordinary
habits of life, to such a degree that we can reject her testimony.
x x x x x x.
x x x x x x.
x x x x x x.
According to the complainant she discovered and came to know
that the man on top of her was accusedappellant and not her
husband, only when a lamp was lighted. Yet, she did not make an
outcry or shout for help, in order to attract the people sleeping in
the house. She did not push, kick, slap nor scratch the face of her
attacker. It baffles the mind why complainant remained lying
there, still holding tightly on to the mans hands and refusing to
release them until he allegedly threatened to kill her with a bolo
poked at her neck. It was the man who wanted to disengage from
the coupling, not complainant, who did not even attempt the
416

416

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Credibility of Witnesses, The Trial Courts Domain

least effort to disentangle from and terminate the coitus. The

behavior of the complainant does not seem to be the normal
behavior of one who felt her honor was being assaulted. For a
woman to hold on to a man who has penetrated her without her
consents far from normal. The natural tendency of a woman in

such a situation is to push, shove or otherwise terminate and

break body contact, instead of prolonging the same by holding on
the supposed rapists hands. Very likely, complaint was then
experiencing organism.

It is quite unnatural for a woman not to reveal the assault

on her virtue immediately after it has happened especially
when there is no threat to her life (People vs. Mejeas, 168
SCRA 33 [1988]) or when there is no restraint on her
liberty.
o0o
417

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.