This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Pasig City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict petitioner and Ragonjan for violation of Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended (Code)[7] and filed the Information[8] with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (trial court).[9] Ragonjan remained at large, leaving petitioner to face trial by himself. | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In view of these testimonies and evidence of the prosecution, appellant's denial must fail. The Court has consistently stressed that denial, like alibi, is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses.[19] Moreover, appellant failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. It was not shown, by any satisfactory degree of proof, that said policemen were impelled by ill-motives to testify against him. There is, therefore, no basis to suspect the veracity of their testimonies. | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the light of private complainant's positive identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime, the latter's defense of bare denial and alibi must necessarily fail, as her positive testimony overrides his negative testimony.[18] Alibi is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused.[19] Further, an alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the petitioner by a credible witness who has no motive to testify falsely.[20] | |||||