SOURCE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO AND MELCHOR AUSTRIACO Y AGUILA (G.R. NO. 185163, 17 JANUARY 2011, VELASCO, JR., J.) SUBJECTS: ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; ELEMENTS AND HOW PROVEN. (SUBJECT: PEOPLE VS. AURE ET AL)

x—————————————————————-x

IF CA DECISION AFFIRMING RTC DECISION BINDING ON SC?

 

YES, UNLESS CA DECISION IS TAINTED WITH ARBITRARINESS, CAPRICIOUSNESS OR PALPABLE ERROR.

In deciding this appeal, this Court is guided by the legal aphorism that factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.[1][34]  As this Court held in People v. Lusabio, Jr.:[2][35]

 

All in all, we find the evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by accused-appellant. When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.  (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)


[1][34] People v. Belo, G.R. No. 187075, July 5, 2010; citing Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 703, 705.

[2][35] G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 565, 590.