This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast to the convincing narration of facts by AAA and BBB are the bare-faced and shaky defenses of denial and alibi proffered by Barcela. Jurisprudence has decreed that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant and her identification of the accused.[20] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion because it can easily be fabricated.[21] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] Here, not a shred of competent proof was adduced by Barcela to corroborate his denial and alibi as they are only supported by his self-serving testimony. Hence, they do not merit any evidentiary value. | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Remilyn had no reason to fabricate the serious charges against her own brother whose life could hang in the balance in case he is found guilty of qualified rape. With the filing of the criminal cases, Remilyn had to face the ire of her other siblings, two of whom have even testified against her. Remilyn is now under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in Lingayen, Pangasinan. An incestuous sexual assault is a psycho-social deviance that inflicts a stigma, not only on the victim but also on their whole family.[21] Even in ordinary rape cases, the sole testimony of a credible victim may seal the fate of the rapist.[22] | |||||
|
2002-02-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Bare denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] Here appellant's bare-faced denial of the charge against him constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[23] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's denial is also an intrinsically weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.[28] The rule is that affirmative testimony is stronger than a negative one, especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[29] The elements of rape[30] and the identity of the malefactor, in our view, were adequately proven beyond moral certainty by the private complainant's positive testimony. In fine, the evidence introduced by the prosecution has successfully met the test of proof required by the Constitution and statutes to sustain a conviction. | |||||