Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMMEL DELA CRUZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 202692 2014-11-12	EDMUND SYDECO Y SIONZON v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Apropos the second issue, the RTC pointed out that the prosecution has the discretion as to how many witnesses it needs to present before the trial court, the positive testimony of a single credible witness as to the guilt of the accused being reasonable enough to warrant a conviction. The RTC cited established jurisprudence[19] enunciating the rule that preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number as "[Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered."
	GR No. 176229 2011-10-19	HO WAI PANG v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
On the other hand, petitioner's conviction in the present case was on the strength of his having been caught in flagrante delicto transporting shabu into the country and not on the basis of any confession or admission. Moreover, the testimony of Cinco was found to be direct, positive and credible by the trial court, hence it need not be corroborated. Cinco witnessed the entire incident thus providing direct evidence as eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime. As the Court held in People v Dela Cruz,[35] "[n]o rule exists which requires a testimony to be corroborated to be adjudged credible. x x x Thus, it is not at all uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a single witness despite the lack of corroboration, where such testimony is found positive and credible by the trial court. In such a case, the lone testimony is sufficient to produce a conviction."
	GR No. 187497 2011-10-12	PEOPLE v. MELANIO GALO BRION, J.
We reiterate the principle that alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.[27] Further, in People of the Philippines v. Herminiano Marzan, we held that "[d]enial is negative and self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the testimony of a credible witness who positively testified that the appellant was at thelocus criminisand was the last person seen with the victim."[28]
	GR No. 186528 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. HEMIANO DE JESUS VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, for the defense of alibi to prosper, appellant must establish that (a) he was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and (b) he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission.[31] x x x
	GR No. 188560 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. RICKY ALFREDO Y NORMAN VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, it has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.[41] It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[42] Thus, there being no strong and credible evidence adduced to overcome the testimony of AAA, no weight can be given to the alibi of accused-appellant.
	GR No. 186539 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, it has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.[35] It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[36] Thus, there being no strong and credible evidence adduced to overcome the testimony of Rosemarie pointing to him as one of the culprits, no weight can be given to accused-appellant Orias' alibi.
	GR No. 184702 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER TALITA ABAD, J.
Appellant Talita of course claims that positive identification is impossible since the shooting was too swift for ample observation. But it was not that swift. Sunshine saw Talita as he walked toward the car and pumped about six shots into the vehicle's occupants. What is more, Talita returned shortly after and fired his gun at Sunshine, giving her further opportunity to observe him. Besides, conditions of visibility at the time favored the witnesses, factors that lend credence to their testimonies.[19] The incident took place in broad daylight. Talita stood just about one meter from Sunshine, and a mere half meter from Maxima. Marty also said that Talita shot him from a distance of about two feet. [20] Under these circumstances, positive identification could not have been elusive.