This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-02-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, the evidence presented by the defense consisted mainly of bare denials and alibi. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses; unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim,[32] who in a simple and straightforward manner convincingly identified the appellant who sexually molested her at midnight of 13 January 2000. Further, for the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.[33] The appellant in this case admitted that his residence was just 30 houses away from that of AAA;[34] thus, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the rape incident. More so, appellant's defenses of denial and alibi run counter to his own argument that what happened between him and AAA was consensual sex. | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. Suffice it to say that this presumption does not apply if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the suppression was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative and (d) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege.[22] Here, respondents' refusal to present or allow the presentation of Dr. Saniel's report was justified. It was privileged communication between physician and patient. | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| victim herself who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time of the arrest.[33] In our view, the arrest of appellants done immediately after the incident was valid for it was made by the arresting officers after the victims of the robbery pointed to appellants as the malefactors. Accordingly, the search and seizure that ensued are valid as incidental to a lawful arrest.[34] However, appellants seek to nullify the seizure of the objects allegedly taken from their possession. They claim they do not constitute admissible evidence as they were not duly receipted nor properly identified at the time they were taken. | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the trial court was confronted with the situation wherein direct evidence is not available to pinpoint the perpetrators of the crime. Notably, there was no eyewitness presented at the trial nor was any confession made available in regard to the commission of the crime. But the trial court had recourse to the doctrine of available circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution in this case. At times it is essential to resort to circumstantial evidence, since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.[44] | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast, all that accused-appellants could muster in their defense are denials. In People v. Edgar Lopez y Emoylan,[41] this Court pointedly declared that "[A]ppellant's proffer of denial and uncorroborated alibi, which are inherently weak defenses[42] cannot therefore be given credence. Appellant's denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is self-serving and deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of witnesses who testified on positive points."[43] | |||||