This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant simply raises the defense of denial, which is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification[41] made by Melody that he was the one (1) who hacked her, her mother and her sisters. Moreover, an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness,[42] as in this case, the child of the assailant who survived his murderous rampage. | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| What is more, alibi is considered as one of the weakest defenses not only due to its inherent weakness and unreliability, but also because it is easy to fabricate.[58] Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than the doctrine that alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the accused by the complainant.[59] Such is the situation in the instant case. Accused-appellant was positively and categorically identified not only by the victim but as well as her brother. As has been consistently ruled by this Court, an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness and alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[60] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| What is more, both denial and alibi are considered as the weakest defenses not only due to their inherent weakness and unreliability, but also because they are easy to fabricate.[23] Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the accused by the complainant.[24] Such is the situation in the instant case. Malate was positively and categorically identified by the complainant. As has been consistently ruled by this Court, an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. And both alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[25] | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Besides, for alibi to prevail, the defense must establish by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was then somewhere else.[11] In the instant case, Martinez failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. He could have easily traveled from Aurora Province (located in Central Luzon) to Manila by land. It would have taken him only a few hours to reach Manila. Thus, there was no physical impossibility for him to have been present at the scene of the crime when it was committed. | |||||