Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ABES Y YAMBOT

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 182555 2010-09-07	LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Deeply embedded in our jurisprudence is the rule that positive identification of the accused, where categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of appellants, whose testimonies are not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[183] However, none of the appellants presented clear and convincing excuses showing the physical impossibility of their being at the crime scene between 8:00 o'clock and 9:00 o'clock in the morning of June 13, 1996. Hence, the trial court and CA did not err in rejecting their common defense of alibi.
	GR No. 171164 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NASARIO CASTEL REYES, R.T., J.
Positive identification prevails over self-serving denial/alibi. Appellant's denial cannot prevail over AAA's positive identification of him as the one who repeatedly raped her. Positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of appellant whose testimony is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Such denial and alibi are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of any weight in law.[85]
	GR No. 127980 2007-12-19	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
On the other hand, the defense of alibi may not be successfully invoked where the identity of the assailant has been established by witnesses.[79] Positive identification of accused where categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of appellants whose testimonies are not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[80] Well-settled is the rule that denial and alibi, being weak defenses, cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the offended parties.[81]
	GR NO. 169246 2007-01-26	PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUZMAN Y BOCBOSILA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it is physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[26] If appellant was, as he claimed, inside his store at the time of the incident, then it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene or in its immediate vicinity. His store is located just beside Mactan Street,[27] and that he witnessed the incident at a distance of merely five arms' length from his store.[28] Therefore, his defense of alibi must fail.
	GR NO. 171017 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO AGUILA Y ATIENZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it is physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[45] If appellant had, as he claimed, remained at the birthday party when Donald and Ronilo allegedly brought Conrado home, it was not physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or in its immediate vicinity. The distance between the house where the birthday party took place and the vacant lot where the crime was committed is merely twenty meters.
	GR NO. 164545 2006-11-20	LORBE REBUCAN Y BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The RTC also observed that there is no evidence on record which disclosed that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by "improper and ill-motive" to testify falsely against petitioner.[46] In fact, there was never an instance wherein petitioner and the prosecution witnesses had a misunderstanding prior to the instant case and that they treated each other as family-members.[47] Thus, without evidence to show that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by an improper motive, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit.[48]
	GR NO. 161722 2006-07-20	G.Q. GARMENTS v. ANGEL MIRANDA CALLEJO, SR., J.
To be entitled to an award of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the precise amount of the loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party to justify such award.[30] The award of actual damages cannot be simply based on the mere allegation of a witness without any tangible claim, such as receipts or other documentary proofs to support such claim.[31] Failing to satisfy the court that petitioner certainly suffered actual damages, its claim must now fail.