This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-10-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On the other hand, appellant merely interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that at the time of the incident, he was at his house with his children and nephew cooking dinner. His defense, however, cannot prevail over the straightforward and credible testimony of AAA who positively identified him as the perpetrator of the murder and rape. Time and again, we have held that positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of the appellant whose testimony is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[29]AAA was firm and unrelenting in pointing to appellant as the one who attacked her and Jennifer, stabbing the latter to death before raping AAA. It should be noted that AAA knew appellant well since they were relatives by affinity. As correctly held by the CA, with AAA's familiarity and proximity with the appellant during the commission of the crime, her identification of appellant could not be doubted or mistaken. In fact, AAA, upon encountering appellant, did not run away as she never thought her own uncle would harm her and her friend. Moreover, the most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and observe the manner in which the crime is being committed.[30]There is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of AAA to testify falsely against appellant or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime. Thus, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[31] | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The alibi of the accused-appellant is similarly untenable. It is well-settled that alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration but also does not, on its face, demonstrate the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[25] Aside from the fact that AAA positively testified that the accused-appellant was her assailant and that she was raped a few days before the start of the Holy Week of the year 2000 or sometime on April 11 to 15, 2000, the daily time records of the accused-appellant easily belie his claim that he worked on the night shifts from April 10 to 16, 2000. | |||||
|
2002-08-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Remarkable also was Marilou's straightforward and clear testimony during direct examination on how she was raped by appellant.[52] Her testimony remained consistent during cross-examination, despite efforts to mislead her.[53] Her candid and straightforward account of her ravishment must be given full faith and credit for in its simplicity it bears the earmarks of credibility.[54] When the offended parties are young girls from the ages of 12 to 16, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by a public trial if the matters about which they testified were not true.[55] Complainant's credibility is enhanced when appellant failed to prove any ill-motive on her part. That she would implicate appellant, who took care of her since childhood, in a heinous crime because her mother wanted to take her back to work as a housemaid is simply far | |||||
|
2002-01-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In sum, we agree with appellant that the killing of Milanes was not characterized by treachery, hence it was only homicide and not murder. Appellant's conviction for frustrated homicide for the stabbing of SPO1 Cura, however, must be sustained. Appellant's intent to kill as earlier discussed is reflected by the weapon he used; and the nature and position of the wounds inflicted.[38] Dr. Viado testified that SPO1 Cura suffered "thru and thru laceration of the gall bladder, stomach and the jejunum" as a result of the stabbing by appellant.[39] Were it not for timely medical attention, SPO1 Cura would have died from said wounds. | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| However, pursuant to current jurisprudence, we deem it proper to give an additional award for moral damages to the heirs of the victim.[50] No proof of pecuniary loss is required in the assessment of moral damages, and the award is essentially by way of indemnity or reparation.[51] Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict can be awarded to the heirs of the victim by proof alone of such fact of death.[52] Moral damages are not awarded to punish the accused but to compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by the victim or his family as the proximate result of the wrongful act and they are recoverable where a criminal offense results in physical injuries which culminate in the death of the victim.[53] Incapable of exact pecuniary estimation, the assessment of such damages is left to the discretion of the court.[54] The award is not meant to enrich the victim at the expense of the accused. An award of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) is commensurate to the emotional suffering of the heirs of the victim.[55] | |||||