Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Leonen Penned Cassed

    Uploaded by

    Lorenzo Hammer
    12 views1 page
    The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not review, evaluate, or weigh evidence from lower courts. When reviewing cases on certiorari, the Supreme Court treats factual findings from lower courts as conclusive. However, there are exceptions where the Supreme Court can make its own factual determinations, such as when lower court findings are based on speculation rather than evidence or there is a grave abuse of discretion. Determining the causes and circumstances of vehicular accidents is also generally a factual matter not revisited by the Supreme Court when lower courts agree, though some exceptions allow the Supreme Court to overturn factual findings.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not review, evaluate, or weigh evidence from lower courts. When reviewing cases on certiorari, the Supreme Court treats factual findings from lower courts as conclusive. However, there are exceptions where the Supreme Court can make its own factual determinations, such as when lower court findings are based on speculation rather than evidence or there is a grave abuse of discretion. Determining the causes and circumstances of vehicular accidents is also generally a factual matter not revisited by the Supreme Court when lower courts agree, though some exceptions allow the Supreme Court to overturn factual findings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views1 page

    Leonen Penned Cassed

    Uploaded by

    Lorenzo Hammer
    The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not review, evaluate, or weigh evidence from lower courts. When reviewing cases on certiorari, the Supreme Court treats factual findings from lower courts as conclusive. However, there are exceptions where the Supreme Court can make its own factual determinations, such as when lower court findings are based on speculation rather than evidence or there is a grave abuse of discretion. Determining the causes and circumstances of vehicular accidents is also generally a factual matter not revisited by the Supreme Court when lower courts agree, though some exceptions allow the Supreme Court to overturn factual findings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; The Supreme Court (SC) is not a trier of facts and it is

    not its duty to review, evaluate, and weigh the probative value of the evidence adduced before
    the lower courts.—Seeking recourse from this court through a petition for review on certiorari
    under Rule 45 bears significantly on the manner by which this court shall treat findings of fact
    and evidentiary matters. As a general rule, it becomes improper for this court to consider
    factual issues: the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed on appeal by the Court of
    Appeals, are conclusive on this court. “The reason behind the rule is that [this] Court is not a
    trier of facts and it is not its duty to review, evaluate, and weigh the probative value of the
    evidence adduced before the lower courts.” A determination of whether a matter has been
    established by a preponderance of evidence is, by definition, a question of fact. It entails an
    appreciation of the relative weight of the competing parties’ evidence. Rule 133, Section 1 of
    the Revised Rules on Evidence provides a guide on what courts may consider in determining
    where the preponderance of evidence lies. (DST Movers Corporation vs. People's General
    Insurance Corporation, 780 SCRA 498, G.R. No. 198627 January 13, 2016)

    Same; Same; Same; A determination of the causes of and circumstances relating to vehicular
    accidents is a factual matter that this court may not revisit when the findings of the trial court
    and the Court of Appeals (CA) are completely in accord; Exceptions.—This court has explained
    in many instances that a determination of the causes of and circumstances relating to vehicular
    accidents is a factual matter that this court may not revisit when the findings of the trial court
    and the Court of Appeals are completely in accord. x x x However, there are exceptions that
    leave room for this court to make a factual determination for itself and, ultimately, to overturn
    the factual findings with which it is confronted: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded
    entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly
    mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the
    judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
    (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and
    the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings
    are contrary to those of the trial court; (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 petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents;
    and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed
    absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. (DST Movers Corporation vs.
    People's General Insurance Corporation, 780 SCRA 498, G.R. No. 198627 January 13, 2016)

    You might also like