This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-01-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The defenses of denial and alibi proffered by appellant were correctly rejected by the courts below in view of "AAA's" positive testimony and unflawed identification of appellant as the culprit. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and "must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused."[20] And as often stressed, positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[21] Also, for his defense of alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must also satisfactorily establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission. Appellant miserably failed in this regard. | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Both the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. From the established set of facts, the appellant's attack on Labides was deliberate, sudden and unexpected; the victim was unarmed and completely unaware of any impending danger to his life.[22] The treachery employed is all the more emphasized when we recall that the appellant stabbed the victim a second time in the back, despite the lack of any resistance from Labides, and even after Labides had already been stabbed in the stomach. Under the circumstances, the RTC and the CA correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, regardless of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.[23] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by petitioners must necessarily fail in view of the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[27] And it is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[28] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by accused-appellant must fail in light of the positive identification made by one of his victims, Jay. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[20] It is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[21] Accused-appellant and his two victims reside in the same barangay and are therefore familiar with one another. Thus, Jay could not have been mistaken on accused-appellant's identity. For alibi to prosper, it must be established 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 accused was somewhere else.[22] Accused-appellant's alibi that he was at his sister's house at the time of the shooting, and that his cousin Pinoy later went to him and told him that he had shot the Valencias was disproved by Cristina, accused-appellant's sister and witness. Cristina testified that her brother, accused-appellant, did not visit her on the night of the incident. Moreover, where the defense of denial remains unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it becomes negative and self-serving, and must not be given more evidentiary value vis-à-vis the affirmative testimony of a credible witness.[23] | |||||