This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Indeed, no prosecution witness has actually seen the commission of the crime. But jurisprudence tells us that direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules on evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.[19] The lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto bar the finding of guilt against the appellant. As long as the prosecution establishes the appellant's participation in the crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the imputed crime, the latter should be convicted.[20] In the case at bar, those circumstances were enumerated by the CA in its decision, as follows: First. Appellant had an axe to grind against Elizabeth for filing a robbery case against him. Elizabeth got murdered the night before the initial hearing of the case; | |||||
|
2012-07-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It bears repeating that this Court has consistently held that alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.[28] Moreover, positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent, and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[29] | |||||
|
2012-02-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second, we increase the award of temperate damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudence.[26] | |||||