This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners in their Memorandum[21] argue that the subject Lot No. 412 of the Talisay Cadastre was subjected to a voluntary offer to sell by no other than the previous owner, Estefania Perovano, on June 18, 1992; that on September 8, 1992, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed between Estefania and the farmer-beneficiaries which included Zosimo and Jesus; the DAR generated a CLOA and the previous title in the name of the previous owner was canceled and thereafter the farmer-beneficiaries took possession of the same; the former landowner had already received payment for the land from the Republic of the Philippines through the Land Bank of the Philippines. Petitioners clarified that since farmer-beneficiaries Arsenio Bene, Ricardo Orocio and Myrna Ayudante who were CLOA holders of the subject Lot No. 412 abandoned the subject property after selling their rights to the landowner, which acts are gross violations of Rep. Act No. 6657, they were recommended for disqualification. In their stead, Zosimo and Jesus were installed as farmer-beneficiaries. They point out that Regional Director Elmo A. Bañares of DAR Region VI, in an Order[22] dated March 11, 1997, denied the protest filed by Enrico Perovano against coverage of Lot No. 412. On January 19, 1998, Regional Director Dominador Andres, DAR, Iloilo City, issued an order granting the exemption of the subject Lot No. 412 from coverage of Rep. Act No. 6657, but said order was reversed on February 3, 2006, by DAR Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman. | |||||
|
2003-08-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As the Court held in one case, the accused cannot capitalize on the failure of the witness to get a long, hard look at him during the incident when circumstances render the same unnecessary.[21] While evidence as to the identity of accused-appellant as the person who committed the crime should be carefully analyzed, this Court has consistently held that where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased against the man on the dock, his or her assertions as to the identity of the malefactor should be normally accepted.[22] Jurisprudence further recognizes that victims of criminal violence have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them.[23] | |||||
|
2000-01-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The bare denials and alibi interposed by accused-appellants when juxtaposed with the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses is not worthy of credence. Recognized as inherently weak defenses,[17] which is the usual refuge of scoundrels, alibi and denial must be buttressed by other convincing evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[18] It all the more fails where the assailants were positively identified by credible witness,[19] against whom no ulterior motive can be attributed, as in this case. Records, show that the place where accused-appellants claimed they were at the time of the incident ranges from a distance of thirty (30) meters to about a kilometer away from the place of the crime. Other than these unsubstantiated, self-serving and negative statements[20] of their alleged respective locations, no other evidence was presented to show that it was impossible for them to physically traverse the two places within a short span of time as to preclude their presence in the locus criminis. Such self-serving statements deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of witnesses who testified on positive points.[21] A distance of about five kilometers between the scene of the crime and the whereabouts of the accused has been considered as not so far as to negate physical presence at the scene of the crime.[22] With more reason then, the fact that a mere neighbor whose house is about fifty (50) meters from the locus criminis which obviously can be negotiated by mere walking negates the posture of alibi. As consistently held by the court, for alibi to prosper, there must be potent proof that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission.[23] As mentioned earlier, no such, convincing proof was presented to substantiate their proffered defenses. | |||||