This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-11-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, Batula's defenses of alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted. They warrant the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses.[25] In addition, Batula's alibi that he was in the forest with his brother Gil does not make it physically impossible for Batula to rape AAA on April 26, 2002 in Barangay Canano. For alibi to prosper, it must be proved that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.[26] The RTC pointed out that "the forest where [Batula] claimed to be when the rape occurred is in x x x [B]arangay Dalosduson, Hinabangan, Samar, linked by a road to Barangay Canano, so that impossibility and improbability are rendered naught."[27] | |||||
|
2003-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, firmly established is the rule that alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted.[22] Such defense warrants the least credibility or none at all[23] and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness.[24] Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[25] | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| True, the defense of appellant is simple denial which had been considered, along with alibi, to be inherently weak and viewed with disfavor by the courts.[43] However, this does not mean that when an accused avails of this defense, the court should automatically adjudge him guilty. We are not unmindful of the reality that in most cases, denial is the only plausible defense available to an innocent person.[44] But, when the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is wanting and the veracity of their narratives questionable, the defense of denial assumes significance,[45] as in this case. | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for rape. As found by the trial court, which we find no reason to doubt, the testimony of complaining witness Ellen Caay was clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[4] Otherwise stated, her credibility is the single important issue.[5] Ellen gave a candid, plain and straightforward account of her harrowing experience in a manner reflective of an honest and unrehearsed testimony.[6] | |||||