Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CADIZ LAPAY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 172184 2007-07-10	NESTOR B. DECASA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court,[1] petitioner Nestor B. Decasa prays for the reversal of the Decision dated 26 April 2005[2] and Resolution dated 23 February 2006[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23072, affirming with modification the Decision dated 21 August 1998[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50, Loay, Bohol, in Criminal Case No. 8006, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
	GR NO. 166401 2006-10-30	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO BON TINGA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[41] The defenses of denial and alibi deserve scant consideration when the prosecution has strong, clear and convincing evidence identifying appellant as the perpetrator.[42] In this case, both BBB and AAA, minors and relatives of appellant, positively identified him as their rapist in open court. The lower courts found no issue detracting from the credibility of such identification.
	GR No. 148371 2004-08-12	ELSA JOSE v. PEOPLE PANGANIBAN, J.
A recourse to the records shows that no reversible error was committed by the CA when it gave credence to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as opposed to petitioner's bare denials. Denial, like alibi, is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of such positive testimonies.[25] Being a self-serving negative evidence, denial cannot be given greater weight than credible declarations on affirmative matters.[26] Well-established is the rule that between the negative averments of the accused and the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses, the latter deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[27]
	GR No. 140732 2002-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOB CORTEZANO Y PAJO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accused-appellant's contentions are bereft of merit. In the parallel case of People v. Lapay,[14] we held that "delay in revealing the names of the malefactors does not, by itself, impair the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies." Time and again, this Court has ruled that "the nondisclosure by the witness to the police officers of accused-appellant's identity immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human experience."[15]