Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BERNARD MAPALO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 174476 2011-10-11	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD T. AGCANAS SERENO, J.
This Court has held in a number of cases that denial and alibi are weak defenses, which cannot prevail against positive identification.[5] People v. Caisip[6] thus held: 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. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
	GR No. 179033 2010-09-06	PEOPLE v. FELICIANO ANABE Y CAPILLAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Conspiracy as a basis for conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty. Considering the far-reaching consequences of a criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof necessary in establishing the crime is required to support the attendance thereof, i.e., it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, it is nonetheless required that it be proved by clear and convincing evidence by showing a series of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in pursuance of the common unlawful purpose.[34]
	GR No. 177430 2009-07-14	RENE M. FRANCISCO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Conspiracy as a basis for conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty.[62] While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, it is, nonetheless, required that to be proved by clear and convincing evidence by showing a series of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose.[63]
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
We have unfailingly held that alibi and denial being inherently weak cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[11] In the present case, petitioner was positively identified by Venancia and Gaudencio as the author of the crime. We quote from the transcript of the stenographic notes:Venancia on Direct-Examination
	GR No. 181901 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. EMILIO MANCHU NACHURA, J.
Appellant's lackluster defenses of denial and alibi fail to cast doubt on the positive identification made by Enerito and the continuous chain of circumstances established by the prosecution. We have consistently held that alibi and denial being inherently weak cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. They are facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and are thus generally rejected.[19]
	GR No. 177299 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. CHARLITO TUMULAK NACHURA, J.
Appellant's weak defense of denial and alibi cannot stand a chance against the declaration of Regalada identifying him as the killer and describing the manner in which he perpetrated the crime. We have unfailingly held that alibi and denial being inherently weak cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. They are facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and are generally rejected.[13]