G.R. No. 190861
"x x x.
As to appellant's contention that the trial court was wrong in appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses over his claim of self-defense, this Court has consistently reiterated that basic is the rule that the trial court's factual findings, especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal. When the issue is one of credibility, the Court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case. The reason therefore is not hard to discern. The trial courts are in a better position to decide questions of credibility having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[20]
Further, settled is the rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible in itself.[21] Hence, the test to determine the value or credibility of the testimony of a witness is whether the same is in conformity with common knowledge and is consistent with the experience of mankind.[22] Based on the findings of the trial court and the CA, the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution are more credible in itself than the self-serving defense of appellant.
x x x."
