This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2003-02-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The defense also faults the trial court for rejecting the testimonies of the defense witnesses. We rule that the lower court did so properly. Evidence indicates that they were merely requested to testify for the accused to corroborate his alibi. Moreover, the defense of alibi cannot be sustained as these witnesses failed to show that not only was the accused somewhere else when the crime was committed but that it was also physically impossible for him to be present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[24] Their testimonies cannot prevail over the complainant's positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[25] | |||||
|
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 | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The award by the trial court of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victim without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was properly granted. When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to such amount as indemnity for the death without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[35] | |||||
|
2000-05-30 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The trial court properly awarded to the heirs of Arlene Guaves the amount equivalent to her unearned income based on her annual income of P15,600.00 (P1,300.00 x 12). Since the victim died at the age of 22, her unearned income shall be computed in accordance with the formula of 2/3 x [80 - age of victim at the time of death] x a reasonable portion of the net income which would have been received by her heirs for support.[43] The "reasonable portion of the net income" shall be arrived at by deducting living expenses which is the equivalent of 50% of the gross annual income, from the same gross annual income.[44] Thus: x = 2 x (80 - 22) x (15,600 - 7,800) 3 = 38.67 x 7,800 = P301,626.00 | |||||