This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating only when (1) it was especially sought by the offender; or (2) the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from identification or capture.[65] In this case, the prosecution did not adduce evidence that the appellant deliberately sought the cover of the night to commit the offense. The mere fact that the killing was committed at night would not suffice to sustain nocturnity for, by, and of itself.[66] Aggravating circumstances must be established with the same quantum of proof as fully as the crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must be resolved in favor of appellant.[67] | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A: It was a certain alias German, ma'm. xxx COURT: Is a certain Nicasio Custodio y Abrera a member of your team? A: I think during that time. xxx COURT: On October 19, 1990, will you recall if he was with you? A: I cannot recall, your honor.[16] In the case of alibi, it is elementary that the requirements of time and place be strictly complied with by the defense, meaning that the accused must not only show that he was somewhere else but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[17] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to Art. 294, par. (2), of the Revised Penal Code, which was the applicable law at the time the crime was committed, when the robbery accompanied by rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two (2) or more persons, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.[37] In this case, the crime was committed by two or more persons and with the use of deadly weapons. However, since the crime was committed in 1988, prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659,[38] and during the effectivity of the constitutional proscription on the imposition of the death penalty,[39] the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper.[40] | |||||
|
2000-02-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Also working against accused-appellants is the time-honored principle that alibi is an inherently weak defense and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim who, in a natural and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellants as those who sexually violated her.[44] This Court has held in a long line of cases that denial is a weak defense and it cannot prevail over a positive identification. Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[45] As discussed above, both Ornella and Alexis, who have not been shown to have any ill motive, have positively identified appellants as the authors of the crime. Thus, we are persuaded that accused-appellants are indeed guilty. The testimony of 16-year old Ornella, in particular, inspires belief. We have held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified is not true.[46] Ornella's credibility as a rape victim is enhanced considering that she has no motive to testify against the accused-appellants and there is absolutely no evidence on record which can even remotely suggest that she could have been actuated by any motive.[47] | |||||