This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of civil liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[85] In this case, the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime. The award of exemplary damages, therefore, is in order. To conform to current jurisprudence, this Court likewise increased the award of exemplary damages given by the appellate court to the heirs of each of the deceased victims to P30,000.00 each.[86] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| At all events, even if corroborated, alibi cannot stand in light of the positive identification by the private complainant who was not shown to have any ill motive for testifying falsely against the accused.[37] | |||||
|
2004-03-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Against the positive identification of the appellant by eyewitness Dadis, all that appellant could offer in his defense were denial and alibi. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[31] Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[32] In this case, the Gagante residence where appellant claimed to be at the time of the incident was located in the same barangay where the fatal stabbing took place. Weak as the appellant's alibi is, it became even weaker when he failed to demonstrate that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[33] | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The appellant's alibi that he was at his brother's house deserves scant consideration. It was correctly rejected by the court a quo for being inherently weak, unreliable, and easily fabricated. For the defense of 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 crime scene at the time of its commission and not merely that he was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime was committed and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[75] In this case, the element of physical impossibility is absent, as the residence of appellant's brother where he supposedly was at the time of the commission of the crime is located in the same barangay as the scene of the crime. Moreover, his alibi must crumble in the face of the positive identification made by the private complainant of the appellant as her rapist.[76] | |||||