This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-02-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| If unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, denial is self-serving and cannot overturn positive eyewitness accounts.[54] Meanwhile, the tenability of the defense of frame-up depends largely on the court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the offender.[55] Arellano failed to substantiate her allegations. Justice Atienza reported that when Arellano testified in both cases, she was restless and did not even look directly at Atty. Maningas,[56] while Orfila and her witnesses did not waiver in their testimony. | |||||
|
2003-09-10 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Appellant's argument that the trial court disregarded "the law on ballistics" when it ignored the fact that the slug found was that of a caliber .45 gun, not that of a .38 caliber handgun, like the service revolver of appellant, hardly could be material. It would only show that it was not appellant's service revolver which was used in the commission of the crime. With the positive identification by eyewitness Joelyn of appellant as being the perpetrator of the crime, the non-presentation by the prosecution of the weapon used in committing the crime would not at all be fatal.[7] Joelyn witnessed at close range the killing of her sister. Her testimony, an eyewitness account, was found credible by the trial court. | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| is positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses.[14] Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[15] We note that the accused failed to establish that they could not be at the vicinity of the Alibio house when the rape and killing took place. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met.[16] The accused must not only prove their presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense but they must also demonstrate that it would be impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[17] As for the imputation that witness Vicente Dauba had an axe to grind against Jose Abayon and Ireneo de Leon and thus was impelled by an improper motive in testifying for the prosecution, this was also properly disregarded by the trial court. While Jose Abayon and Ireneo de | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention that the prosecution's omission to present an autopsy report, ballistic examination report and other reliable scientific reports to match physical evidence with Zenaida's testimony constituted "loose ends" that derailed the prosecution's case[67] is devoid of merit. Those reports would have been indispensable had there been no credible eyewitness to the crime as they would only be corroborative in nature. Thus, the non-presentation of the weapon in a murder case is not fatal to the prosecution's case because of the positive identification of the accused by an eyewitness.[68] The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt, through the credible testimony of Zenaida, the identity of that appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Because of the positive identification by Zenaida, appellant's alibi and denial were rendered unworthy of credit.[69] Moreover, appellant's alibi was not established in accordance with law. It is well-settled that in order for an alibi to prevail, the defense must establish by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that he was somewhere else.[70] As borne out by the records, the defense was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for appellant to have been at the crime scene. Appellant was allegedly in Barangay Sidem which is located in the same municipality of Gattaran, the site of the crime. The fact that the crime scene and the place where appellant claimed to be at during the crucial days of the perpetration of the crime are shown by appellant's own admission that he allegedly heard the gunshot that killed Aurelio. | |||||