This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Mere denial by an accused, particularly when not properly corroborated or substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[9] Denial partakes of the nature of negative and self-serving evidence and is seldom given weight in law.[10] Positive and forthright declarations of witnesses are often held to be worthier of credence than the self-serving denial of an accused.[11] | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The accused's denial of the crime cannot be an adequate defense against the charge. In People v. Mahinay[18] we held that mere denial by witnesses particularly when not corroborated or substantiated by clear and evidencing evidence cannot prevail over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Denial being in the nature of negative and self-serving evidence is seldom given weight in law. Positive and forthright declarations of witnesses are even held to be worthier of credence than a self-serving denial. | |||||
|
2000-01-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The bare denials and alibi interposed by accused-appellants when juxtaposed with the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses is not worthy of credence. Recognized as inherently weak defenses,[17] which is the usual refuge of scoundrels, alibi and denial must be buttressed by other convincing evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[18] It all the more fails where the assailants were positively identified by credible witness,[19] against whom no ulterior motive can be attributed, as in this case. Records, show that the place where accused-appellants claimed they were at the time of the incident ranges from a distance of thirty (30) meters to about a kilometer away from the place of the crime. Other than these unsubstantiated, self-serving and negative statements[20] of their alleged respective locations, no other evidence was presented to show that it was impossible for them to physically traverse the two places within a short span of time as to preclude their presence in the locus criminis. Such self-serving statements deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of witnesses who testified on positive points.[21] A distance of about five kilometers between the scene of the crime and the whereabouts of the accused has been considered as not so far as to negate physical presence at the scene of the crime.[22] With more reason then, the fact that a mere neighbor whose house is about fifty (50) meters from the locus criminis which obviously can be negotiated by mere walking negates the posture of alibi. As consistently held by the court, for alibi to prosper, there must be potent proof that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission.[23] As mentioned earlier, no such, convincing proof was presented to substantiate their proffered defenses. | |||||