This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-03-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[23] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The matters pointed out by appellant are minor and inconsequential and do not affect the substance of the eyewitness' declaration, nor the veracity or weight of his testimony. The issues raised by appellant do not pertain to the actual act constitutive of the offense charged,[17] as on this point, the testimony of Jericho Capanas is clear and convincing: Q: Did you see the stabbing? A: Yes, sir. | |||||
|
2009-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is well-settled that a bare alibi and denial, being merely self-serving, is itself hardly given credence. Alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification by an eyewitness. Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevail over the twin defenses of denial and alibi.[23] Here, prosecution eyewitness Baque positively identified that Roger was present when the stabbing incident occurred. In fact, he was only four arms length away from the crime scene when he saw Roger stabbing the victim. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Juxtaposed against the prosecution's positive identification of the malefactors, appellants' defense of alibi crumbles. As we consistently held, alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[22] For alibi to prevail, clear and satisfactory proof must be shown 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 he was somewhere else.[23] | |||||