This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the same vein, we are not persuaded by the appellant's defense of denial. Well entrenched is the rule that the defense of denial can easily be overcome by a positive identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness.[17] As aptly cited in the case of People of the Phils. v. Carlito Mateo y Patawid,[18] the defense of denial cannot surmount the positive and affirmative testimony offered by the prosecution. It is self-serving deserving no weight in law. Alibi, on the other hand, is viewed with suspicion and received with caution, because it can easily be fabricated.[19] For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[20] | |||||
|
2010-09-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness[24] identifying a person as the perpetrator of the crime absent proof of ill motive. No reason or motive was given for Oliva to falsely testify against accused-appellants on such a serious crime. As often noted, the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor and candor of the witnesses and to decide who is telling the truth. We, thus, defer to the trial court's findings especially when duly affirmed by the appellate court. | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Second. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense, which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Similarly, alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[28] In this case, petitioner was positively identified by Rosario as the one who mauled her son - a witness who was characterized by both the RTC and the CA as credible and who had no ill motive to implicate petitioner in this dastardly crime. Likewise, petitioner's own evidence shows that, in fact, he met Manuel and, thereafter, was in the immediate environs when the incident occurred, as the ricemill was located in a barangay adjacent to Barangay Bagong Bayan. We take note of the CA's keen observation that, at some point, petitioner was left alone by the two other defense witnesses who never saw where petitioner went after they saw him with Manuel.[29] | |||||