The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented. 20 Va. App. In its role of judging witness credibility, the fact finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that the accused is lying to conceal his guilt. Therefore, the trial court was not required to accept appellant's testimony denying he committed the embezzlement. Nor was the trial court required to be persuaded by the testimony of Damron.
Opportunity is always a relevant circumstance . . .
Whether the Commonwealth relies upon either direct or circumstantial evidence, it is not required to disprove every remote possibility of innocence, but is, instead, required only to establish guilt of the accused to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. Here, the evidence proved that the embezzlement occurred only when appellant was working and that it was concealed by use of the over-ring method performed by the use of appellant's magnetic swipe card or access code. Although evidence existed that others used his card or access code, no other employee consistently worked the same days of the week or shared the same shift changes. Appellant had access to the money because, as shift manager, he reviewed the balance reports and counted the money. Further, the embezzlement ceased when appellant's employment ceased.