This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-07-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Likewise untenable is appellant's contention that Valenciano's testimony cannot be relied upon since it was not corroborated by other witnesses to the crime. Finding of guilt based on the testimony of a lone witness is not uncommon.[36] "For although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence, preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number and conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a single witness. Corroborative evidence is deemed necessary 'only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.'"[37] This is not obtaining in this case. | |||||
|
2009-02-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As for the last issue, the appellant was positively identified by eyewitness Angelito Malanum. Even if he was identified only nine days later, this delay does not cast doubt on the veracity of Malanum's testimony. The failure of the witness to reveal at once the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime does not impair his credibility. His fear for his life, the fact that he was nearly killed himself, must be taken into consideration. The situation of the witness must be taken in the context of reality and his diffidence on the matter is therefore understandable.[29] | |||||
|
2008-10-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The identification of appellant as the malefactor by his grandson Rodel should a fortiori be accorded much weight, for judicial notice is taken of the natural hesitancy of most people to get involved in a criminal case,[5] which is naturally heightened in Rodel because appellant is a relative. | |||||
|
2003-02-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Time and again this Court has deferred to the trial court's assessment of the witnesses and their credibility having the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and to detect if they were telling a lie.[10] This Court does not have the vantage position of a trial judge but merely relies on the cold records and the judge's discretion. In the absence of any showing that his factual findings were reached arbitrarily or without sufficient basis, these findings are to be received with great respect by this Court, and indeed are binding upon it.[11] A cautious examination of the records and stenographic notes required in reviewing rape cases convinces us that the supposed inconsistencies have been satisfactorily explained. | |||||
|
2000-11-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "Firstly, it was admitted by the defense that the duty log-book and the morning/evening formation sheet do not always reflect the whereabouts of the Tanay PNP members for the day such that even when they have deviated from their regular assignments, no note whatsoever appears on said log-book. Accused were at the Hilltop Headquarters in Taytay from around 9:15 a.m. to 5 p.m. of February 9, 1994 and yet, the duty log-book they submitted in Court show otherwise. In said log-book, the Post/Assignment of accused Acebron was "Intel Optvs/follow-up" while accused Mercado was supposed to be at "Post OP #2." The Court does not believe this log-book is reliable. Secondly, again by the defense' own admission, Tanay PNP members sign their names once on the log-book and this will be enough to confirm their presence or attendance for the entire day. Surely, the possibility that all the PNP members do not in fact arrive at and leave their office at the same time of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. can not be disregarded. Still, a reading of the entries in the log-book submitted by the defense would somehow suggest this. The physical impossibility of accused Mercado, at least, being in Pasig at around 9 p.m. on February 9, 1994 is not established. The defense of alibi is, therefore, rejected by the Court."[45] Indeed, alibi is generally regarded with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated and concocted. For alibi to prosper as a defense, it must be convincing enough 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.[46] An accused who invokes the defense of alibi must prove (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime and (b) the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.[47] | |||||