Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HECTOR ALVIZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 186119 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Otherwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit.[41] A denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative, self-serving, merits no weight in law, and cannot therefore be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[42] Greater weight is given to the categorical identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused's plain denial of participation in the commission of the crime.[43] Indeed, denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against accused-appellant. Absence of improper motives makes a testimony worthy of full faith and credence.[44] In this case, there being no strong and credible evidence adduced to overcome the testimonies of Doris Labini and Tomasito de los Santos pointing to accused-appellant as the culprit, no weight can be given to his denial.
	GR No. 181255 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
or even in places which to many might appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[31] Rape is not a respecter of place or time.[32] Neither is it necessary for the rape to be committed in an isolated place, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time in carrying out their evil deed. AAA's alleged failure to cry out for help during the time the rape was supposed to have been committed, in spite of the physical proximity of her relatives, or to report the incident to them, did not make her testimony improbable. The argument of the defense that no
	GR No. 173282 2008-03-04	JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner interposes the defenses of denial and alibi. As against the damning evidence of the prosecution, they must necessarily fail. A denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative, self-serving, merits no weight in law, and cannot therefore be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[51]
	GR NO. 172068 2007-08-07	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO MANGUBAT GARCIA, J.
In the review of rape cases where, most often than not, the credibility of the victim is in issue, the Court consistently relies on the assessment of the trial court.[9] It has long been held that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses should be viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness box, and the manner in which they give their testimony.[10] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on record some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which that court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[11] None of the exceptions obtain herein.
	GR No. 174474 2007-05-25	PEOPLE v. LEODEGARIO G. GREGORIO GARCIA, J.
In exculpation, appellant relies mainly on denial and alibi. He simply discharged as not true the accusation that he raped his daughter on September 18, 1998. Given the unequivocal and positive testimony of XXX vis-à-vis the incident of September 18, 1998, as charged in Criminal Case No. 7836, appellant's bare denial thereof must simply collapse. A denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative, self-serving and merits no weight in law.[18]
	GR NO. 170849 2007-03-07	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MORAN JR. Y GORDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in favor of the victim is in order.[20] Likewise, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is justified conformably with the recent pronouncement of the Court.[21]
	GR NO. 169075 2007-02-23	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DULLAVIN GARCIA, J.
At bottom, all that appellants could proffer by way of defense are denial and alibi, which, unfortunately for them, are inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. A denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative, self-serving and merits no weight in law.[24] On the other hand, for alibi to prosper, the hornbook rule requires a showing that the accused was at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[25] The accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also convincingly demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.