Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MELECIO DE LOS SANTOS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 202020 2013-03-13	MIKE ALVIN PIELAGO Y ROS v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
The clear, consistent and spontaneous testimony of AAA unrelentingly established that Pielago inserted his right hand's forefinger into her vagina and anus while she and her younger brother, CCC, were in his custody. Being a child of tender years, her failure to resist or struggle while Pielago molested her would all the more prove how she felt intimidated by her "Kuya". Furthermore, Pielago's bare denial cannot exculpate him from the criminal charge. It is well-settled that denial, just like alibi, cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of an accused by the complainant.[22] Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crime attributed to him.[23]
	GR No. 201587 2012-11-14	PEOPLE v. VICTOR LANSANGAN REYES, J.
The denial of Lansangan cannot exculpate him from the criminal charge. It is well-settled that denial, just like alibi, cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of an accused by the complainant.[16] Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crime attributed to him.[17] Apparently, in the instant case, Lansangan failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, particularly XXX, that would have impelled her to testify falsely against him. Thus, it was held in People v. Agcanas:[18]
	GR No. 194608 2012-07-09	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BARAOIL REYES, J.
The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proven. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left to the trial courts to determine. However, an appeal throws the whole case open for review such that the Court may, and generally does, look into the entire records if only to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[9]