5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [13] G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328. [14] Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, supra, at 330-331. [15] Rollo, p. 197. [16] Macapagal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193217, February 26, 2014; Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr., G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 113. [17] Id. at 117. [18] Id. [19] Id. [20] Magtira v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170964, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 607, 615. [21] They are: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) 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; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. (Id. citing Dueñas v. GuceAfrica, G.R. No. 165679, October 5, 2009, 603 SCRA 11, 20-21.) [22] Magtira v. People of the Philippines, supra note 20. [23] Id. [24] Emphases supplied. [25] People v. Chua, GR. No. 187052, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 575, 592; Sy v. People, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 264, 271. [26] People v. Nogra, 585 Phil. 712, 724 (2008). [27] Id. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58317 10/11