This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Then, as for alibi, such a defense would prosper only if the accused was able to prove that not only was he at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission.[38] Using such standards, Dinamling's alibi holds no water. Not only was his alleged location at the time of commission, that is, the XXX Police Station where he was on duty, in the same municipality as the crimes' place of commission, Dinamling himself also admited that this police station is just “two to three minutes” away from AAA's boarding house. Where the accused admits that he was in the same municipality as the place where the offense occurred, it cannot be said that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crime, and his defense of alibi cannot prosper.[39] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.[13] Moreover, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.[14] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The testimony of a single eyewitness, if found to be positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction,[43] especially when it bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner.[44] Indeed, the testimony of a single witness when found sufficient needs no corroboration, save only where the law expressly prescribes a minimum number of witnesses. [45] Errorless testimonies can hardly be expected especially when a witness is recounting the details of a harrowing experience. As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing of statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies. Such inconsistencies on minor details would even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed."[46] The Court has consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects to justify the reversal of a judgment of conviction.[47] | |||||