This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in giving more weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. In evaluating the evidence, the trial court does not weigh the defense witnesses' testimonies by themselves. The trial court compares the testimonies from both sides. It then decides which testimonies have more weight. Absent any cogent reason to disturb its evaluation, we must respect the trial court's evaluation. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, since it has the opportunity to hear them personally, observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[16] After reviewing the transcript of stenographic notes in their entirety, we hold that the trial court committed no error when it chose to rely on the prosecution witnesses rather than on the defense witnesses. Appellant even failed to ascribe any ill-motive to the victim's wife for implicating appellant. The trial court correctly gave more weight to the positive testimony of an eyewitness to the crime rather than to the alibi of the accused.[17] Moreover, for alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate that he was so far away from the scene of the crime that it was physically impossible for him to be present there at the time of its commission.[18] While appellant denied he was at the scene of the crime on the night of its commission, by his own admission he placed himself within a reasonably near area Barangay Malamig. Barangay Bonga Menor, the place where the crime took place, is only four kilometers away from where appellant claimed he was. One can cover the distance in an hour's walk considering that both barangays are located within the town of Bustos, a relatively small town in the province of Bulacan.[19] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Bare denials, without clear and convincing evidence to support them,[23] can not sway judgment. They are self-serving statements,[24] that are inherently weak and can easily be put forward.[25] | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. That overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.[27] When Calabroso, Matos and Dumrique joined Sata inside the tricycle and fled towards Kiangan after Nacnac was stabbed they performed well-coordinated acts indicating a common purpose to steal the vehicle.[28] Conspiracy is also inferred not only from their conduct before and during the commission of the crime but also thereafter, showing that they acted in unison with each other.[29] Calabroso, Dumrique and Sata proceeded to Nueva Vizcaya to dispose of the motorcycle. Matos stayed behind as his companions promised to pick him up later. As promised, they returned to Kiangan still with the vehicle. Conspiracy having been proven, accused-appellants are equally liable for carnapping the tricycle of Nacnac.[30] | |||||