This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-04-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It must always be remembered that between positive and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth to it on the one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails.[39] | |||||
|
2008-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Militating against petitioners' denial are their respective testimonies pointing to each other as the author of the crime. Eduardo categorically said he saw Joseph stab the victim, while Joseph declared it was Eduardo who committed the crime. These declarations, taken together with the positive testimony of Nestor, undeniably denigrate Eduardo and Joseph's defense of denial. As constantly pronounced by this Court, denial, like alibi, is a weak defense which becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses.[31] The denial of the accused constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can hardly be considered as overcoming a straightforward and credit-worthy eyewitness account.[32] As between a positive and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[33] | |||||