This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-08-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The defense of appellants of alibi is at best weak when faced with the positive identification of the appellants by the prosecution's principal witness. It is elemental that for alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. This means that the accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at that time.[102] In the present case, there was absolutely no claim of any fact that would show that it was well nigh impossible for appellants to be present at the locus criminis. In fact, they all testified that they were going towards the vicinity of the area of the shooting incident when the police apprehended them. | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| A His back. [10] Given appellant's positive identification by eyewitnesses Campita and Manatlao, both of whom had no motive to falsely testify against the former, appellant's defense of bare denial and alibi must simply collapse. His claim that during the time material he was at his cousin's house in Sitio Tabing Ilog and was having a drinking spree with his cousin Oscar and a certain Nonoy fails to impress. For alibi to prosper, appellant must show that he was at such place for such period of time that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission.[11] As admitted by appellant himself, Sitio Gumamela, where the incident happened, is only a 30-minute drive away from Sitio Tabing Ilog. Hence, it is not at all physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. We may add that neither his cousin Oscar nor Nonoy with whom he allegedly had a drinking spree was ever called upon by appellant to corroborate his tale. Already a weak defense, alibi becomes even weaker by reason of the failure of the defense to present any corroboration.[12] | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For alibi to prosper, it would not be enough for the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed. He must further demonstrate that it would have been physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[12] It is essential that credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime be presented to establish an acceptable alibi.[13] Petitioner failed to meet this test. While petitioner could have been working as intelligence agent in San Pedro, Laguna from October 19 21, 1990, contrary to his claim, it was not physically impossible for him to have been in Pasig City, Metro Manila on the day of the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The defense that Adora was the sweetheart of accused-appellant and that she always initiated the foreplay in their lovemaking could have only been concocted by a person utterly devoid of moral fiber and whose mind is saturated with lechery. As this Court had said that a father's claim that he and his daughter were living together as husband and wife is an affront to Filipino values, assault on the intelligence and offends sensibilities,[33] the same can be said of sexual relationships between in-laws. It is inconceivable that Adora with her innocence, against whom no proof of sexual perversity or loose morality had been shown, could seduce accused-appellant who was already twenty-eight (28) years old at the time of the incident[34] and who happened to be her brother-in-law. In fact, such claims of accused-appellant on the witness stand so infuriated her that she threw her bag at him and branded him a liar.[35] His self-serving declarations cannot prevail over her positive assertions.[36] Regarding the alleged "love letter" sent by "Bing," Adora refuted it by showing samples of her handwriting found on her high school spelling booklet and test papers which were hardly similar to that on the "love letter." Thus, she convincingly denied authorship of the letter. At any rate, the burden of proof was on accused-appellant to demonstrate that the handwriting was Adora's. He did not bother to do so. Having failed in this regard, the supposed "love letter" is worthless. More importantly, his name as addressee was not even distinctly stated therein; rather, the letter was addressed, "To Love." | |||||
|
2000-07-10 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation. It appears that the appellant used a knife to threaten his victim on the occasion of the commission of the crime of rape. Hence, the imposable penalty in accordance with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no proof of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, or any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Section 11 of R. A. 7659, the imposable penalty in this case of simple rape is reclusion perpetua. It has been the policy of the Court to award outrightly an amount not exceeding P50,000.00 to rape victims which relates to or can be categorized as actual or compensatory damages.[33] In addition, moral damages may be awarded to victims of rape notwithstanding the absence of proof as basis for its award.[34] | |||||