This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-10-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is clear, therefore, that in order for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused should demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she was somewhere else when the buy-bust operation was conducted, and that it was physically impossible for him or her to be present at the scene of the crime either before, during, or after the offense was committed.[25] It is on this thrust that the alibis made by accused-appellants failed to convince since all of them admitted that they were within the vicinity of Building 2, Maharlika Village, Taguig City, which, apparently, was the locus criminis of the offense. Furthermore, considering that alibi as evidence is negative in nature and self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[26] | |||||
|
2000-03-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to Sergio's wife, Rosalinda, the killing was attended by treachery since she was sleeping at the time of the attack, and was in no position to flee or defend herself.[38] As to the three children, Merlene, Rosalie, and Sherly, ages 7, 4, and 2 respectively, the killing was also attended by treachery since they were mere children of tender years who were killed while they were sleeping.[39] Treachery absorbs the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.[40] Evident premeditation was not proven with clear and convincing evidence. Considering that the killings were committed in the domicile of the four victims, without provocation on their part, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance by reason of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode, for "he who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong, is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere."[41] | |||||