This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, the only defenses proffered by the appellants are denial and alibi, which are, however, the weakest of defenses in criminal cases. The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive and credible testimony of Perlita Mariano who pointed to and identified the appellants as the two of the malefactors.[53] Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[54] The Court notes that the appellants even admitted that they were in the dance hall before the stabbing, and that Jose left only after the incident. Moreover, Jose did not present any other witness to corroborate his alibi. | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The issue regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses should be resolved against appellant. This Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[13] Well-entrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a reexamination if not the disturbance of the same; the reason being that the former is in a better and unique position of hearing first hand the witnesses and observing their deportment, conduct and attitude.[14] Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, the trial judge's assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court's highest respect.[15] Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[16] | |||||
|
2003-09-10 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The relationship of Joelyn to the victim would not be a reason to either discredit her or disbelieve her testimony; in fact, it should be unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone else other than the actual culprit himself.[8] Nothing was shown to indicate in any way that Joelyn was impelled by improper motive in testifying against appellant that should thus add to her credibility.[9] | |||||
|
2003-03-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The award of moral and actual damages by the lower court should be modified. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[16] the victim's heirs are entitled to the civil indemnity of P100,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00. Only P15,000.00 funeral expenses was duly receipted and proved; understandably, the actual damages suffered must have been more than the amount proven; in situations of this nature, the Court allows an award of temperate damages of P25,000.00. | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Now, why should Rosita Fontelera run towards the house shouting "Edwin, Edwin, Novaliches" if she was not running away from accused-appellant because the latter was attacking her? And why should accused-appellant panic and flee from the scene of the killing and go into hiding in Novaliches if he was not guilty? Flight is evidence of guilt.[30] For as the proverb says, "the wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion."[31] Accused-appellant's excuse that he went home to "tell my parents about what happened"[32] is puerile and is not worthy of credence. The explanation in his brief[33] that it was because he feared for his safety and that he wanted "to surrender in a safer place like his hometown" is an admission that he is guilty of the killing of the couple. He feared for his safety because of possible revenge by relatives and friends of the victims. | |||||