This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It should also be remembered that Erdaje escaped from prison after he was duly arraigned. His flight can only be indicative of his guilt. Flight means the act of evading the natural course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest, detention, or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. In jurisprudence, it has always been a strong indication of guilt betraying a desire to evade responsibility.[47] It is hardly consistent with a claim of innocence.[48] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defense of denial and alibi must fail. For an alibi to be credible and given due weight, one must show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense and could not prevail over witnesses' positive identification. The denial of an accused cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[42] Measured against these standards, appellant's alibi that he was at his house when Pascual was killed; and his denial of any participation in David's death, deserve no credence at all. The positive, categorical, and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses must prevail. | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The court a quo, however, correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000 on account of the grief and suffering of the victim's heirs.[33] The award of moral damages in the amount of P75,000, as prayed for by the Office of the Solicitor General, refers to cases of rape where the victim dies. The rule is not applicable to cases of robbery with homicide. | |||||