Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MAURICIO WATIWAT

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
It must be stressed that Alfaro categorically declared it was Rodriguez who approached her at Faces Disco on March 30, 1995 and told her to shut up or she would be killed. Aside from making that threat, Rodriguez also offered Alfaro a plane ticket so she could leave the country.[162] Rodriguez's bare denial cannot be given any evidentiary weight. We have ruled that denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[163]
	GR No. 178199 2009-10-05	PEOPLE v. YOON CHANG WOOK VELASCO JR., J.
Under items 1 and 2 of the assignment of errors, Yoon submits that the trial court erred in ruling that AAA's "lone testimony x x x met the required test of credibility to warrant conviction" and in concluding that the fate of Yoon boils down to the "word of [AAA] against the word of [Yoon]." In fine, the alleged errors 1 and 2 go directly to the trial court's appreciation of the private offended party's testimony and its sufficiency to sustain a finding of guilt. They need not detain us long. By the peculiar nature of rape cases, conviction most often rests solely on the basis of the victim's testimony, if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[18] When a woman testifies to having been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, for as long as her testimony hurdles the test of credibility.[19]
	GR NO. 165884 2007-04-23	CIELITO R. GAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's denial that he changed the procedure in the flow of money and that he returned the monies he audited to the tellers cannot prevail over the affirmative and categorical testimonies of Elsa A. Dantes, Merceditas S. Manio and Inocencia Sarmenta that they merely followed the procedure that was laid down by petitioner when he took over as Internal Auditor. Dantes and Manio positively testified that their collections were left with petitioner and that the same were not returned to them after petitioner audited the monies because the latter was the one who would turn them over to the Treasurer. Sarmenta was firm in saying she had not come across the CTOS involved and that the monies therein mentioned were not received by her from petitioner. Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[62] Like alibi, denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses.[63]
	GR NO. 168628 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. EMETERIO RICAMORA Y SUELLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict.[20]
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We are not convinced. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their virtue.[41] Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[42] It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.[43] The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, private complainant, who is barely in her teens, satisfactorily explained why she did not immediately inform her mother of her ordeal. According to her, she is afraid of her stepfather and that the latter threatened to kill her and her family if she would divulge the sexual attack on her.[44] Appellant, being her stepfather, exercises moral ascendancy and influence over her. Thus, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.
	GR Nos. 152592-93 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOURIEL DIMACUHA Y CASAO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As against Sherie Ann's positive and credible testimony, appellant could only offer denial and alibi in his defense. Firmly established is the rule that denial and alibi are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted. Such defense warrants the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses. Denial is self-serving evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[14]
	GR Nos. 136592-93 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. MANOLITO PANCHO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Appellant's denial is an inherently weak defense. It has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted.[28] Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the accused, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[29] Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters. [30]