This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On the alibi as defense, time and again, we have ruled alibis like denials, are inherently weak and unreliable because they can easily be fabricated.[32] For alibi to prosper, the accused must convincingly prove that he was somewhere else at the time when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.[33] In the case at bar, Adriano claimed he was in Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga at the time of incident. Adriano's claim failed to persuade. As admitted, Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga was only less than an hour away from the crime scene, Barangay Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Hence, it was not physically impossible for Adriano to be at the crime scene at the time of the incident. | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Denial, just like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is inherently weak, being self-serving negative evidence undeserving of weight in law.[31] To be sure, either gratuitous defense cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[32] Put a bit differently, the defense of denial or alibi becomes even weaker in the face of an unqualified and positive identification of Achas as complainant's rapist.[33] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is within the foregoing framework that courts have consistently assigned full weight and credit to the testimony of a child-complainant, for no woman, much less one of tender age, would broadcast a violation of her person, allow an examination of her flesh and endure a public trial of her remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the desire for redress.[83] Thus, when her testimony is plausible, spontaneous, convincing and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, it can indeed beget moral certainty of the guilt of her violator.[84] And what can overcome the weight of her testimony is inconsistency on the fact of carnal knowledge or any credible physical evidence of the lack of it.[85] But for as long as she remains steadfast in her testimony on the essential element of carnal knowledge, inconsistencies or discrepancies on any other detail will not impair, but rather buttress, the veracity of her testimony, for lapses in her recollection of peripheral details are only to be expected for she is made to relive a harrowing experience.[86] This rule holds especially true when the minor inconsistencies are between her sworn statements and testimony in open court for such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit her since ex-parte affidavits are almost always incomplete and therefore inferior to the testimony given in open court.[87] | |||||