This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-08-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Medical findings revealed that the victim's vagina had old lacerations that were consistent with her claim that she was molested. Against the damning evidence adduced by the prosecution, what appellant could only muster is a barefaced denial. Unfortunately for him, his defense is much too flaccid to stay firm against the weighty evidence for the prosecution. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence, which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[24] Between the self-serving testimony of Bienvenido and the positive declaration of the victim, the latter deserves greater credence.[25] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Against the damning evidence adduced by the prosecution, petitioners Raymund and Rodel could only muster mere denial. Unfortunately for them, their defense was much too flaccid to stay firm against the weighty evidence for the prosecution. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence that deserves no weight in law. It cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[14] Between the self-serving testimonies of petitioners and the positive identification by the eyewitness, the latter deserves greater credence.[15] | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In contrast to damning evidence adduced by the prosecution, Julio gave nothing but alibi and denial. Unfortunately for Julio, his defense is much too flaccid to stay firm against the weighty evidence for the prosecution. Julio gave only self-serving testimonies, coroborated only by the testimonies of his wife and friends. As we have held, "[a]libi becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by relatives and friends who may then not be impartial witnesses."[30] IN the same vein, denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence, which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[31] Alibi and denial are an inherently weak defense and must be rejected when the accused's identity is satisfactorily and a categorically established by the eyewitnesses to the offense, especially when such eyewitnesses have no ill motive to testify falsely.[32] In the case at bar, the defense failed to show that AAA was motivated by ill will. | |||||
|
2008-10-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Alibi is an inherently weak defense, and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[27] The prosecution witness had categorically identified Arturo as the author of the crime. With the positive identification of Arturo, the defense must demonstrate by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.[28] Hence, it is not sufficient that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[29] In this case, Arturo said that he went to sleep at around 7:30 p.m. of the night in question.[30] Arturo's brother-in-law also claimed that he saw Arturo asleep before 8:00 p.m.[31] His wife also testified that Arturo went to bed a little after 7:00 p.m. of the night.[32] While it may be true that Arturo was asleep before the killing incident took place, there is also a great possibility that Arturo woke up and hurriedly went to the place of the victim and, after killing her, returned to his sister's house at around 8:30 p.m. This thesis gains more significance since Arturo himself admitted that his sister's house is very close to that of the victim, which is only less than 300 meters away. There is, therefore, a huge possibility that Arturo was present at the scene of the crime when it was committed at around 8:00 p.m. of 23 July 2002. Hence, the defense is unsuccessful in demonstrating that it was physically impossible for Arturo to be there at the crime scene or nearby when the killing occurred. Besides, the witnesses who corroborated Arturo's alibi are his close relatives. This Court gives less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives, thus:One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.[33] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2008-04-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing, the prosecution adequately established in graphic detail that during the incidents in question, AAA stayed with the appellant in the barracks of the 642 Construction in Cogon, Gubat, Sorsogon and that appellant ravished his 13-year old daughter in four different dates, i.e., in the early morning of 18 January 1992, during the nights of 19 January 1992, 20 January 1992 and 28 March 1992. In all these deflorations, the victim resisted the bestial acts of the appellant, but the same proved fruitless as the latter was far stronger than her. Medical findings revealed that the victim's hymen had old lacerations at various areas and that her labia minora had abrasion which are consistent with her claim that she was molested. Against the damning evidence adduced by the prosecution, what appellant could only muster is a barefaced denial. Unfortunately for the appellant, his defense is much too flaccid to stay firm against the weighty evidence for the prosecution. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[41] Between the self-serving testimony of appellant and the positive identification by the eyewitness, the latter deserves greater credence.[42] | |||||
|
2007-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Alibi is an inherently weak defense and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[12] The prosecution witness had categorically identified appellants as participants in the crime. With the positive identification of the appellants, they must demonstrate by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.[13] Hence, it is not sufficient that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[14] In the instant case, appellant Jose admitted that there are available means of going to Tibagan from Saluysoy, and that it would take only about 2 hours to travel. His admission proves fatal to his defense. He surreptitiously acknowledged that it was physically possible for him to be at the scene when the crime happened. | |||||