This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defenses of denial and alibi in this case are not worthy of belief, given that he failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the time and place of the crime.[26] Established is the rule that denial and alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[27] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Positive identification, where categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[37] The appellant had not shown that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the time and place of the crime.[38] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| We likewise accord credibility to Evelyn when she identified appellant to be her father's assailant. Be it remembered that at the time appellant attacked the father, Evelyn had already positively identified him as the knife wielder in her bedroom and her attacker in the living room. From the steady stream of events that unfolded interminably from the time she was roused from her sleep up to the time appellant began attacking her father, Evelyn was the object of appellant's ire, so much so that when the father saw his hapless daughter in the grip of a knife-wielding intruder, the father exclaimed: "Randy, bakit mo ginaganyan ang anak ko." And as appellant charged upon the father, it was but in accord with human nature for daughter Evelyn to try to remain conscious to be able to come to the aid of her father in any manner she could, even just to identify his attacker. Indeed, Evelyn's identification of appellant draws strength from the rule that family members who have witnessed the killing of their loved ones usually strive, at the very least, to remember the faces of the assailants.[19] A relative will naturally be | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Finally, on the matter of appellant's civil liability, prevailing jurisprudence dictates the imposition of moral damages in the amount of P50,000[43] and temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.[44] The P50,000 indemnity fixed by the court a quo is sustained. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Further, it bears stressing that appellant gave no proof of ill-motive for Almodovar to testify falsely against him. Appellant himself admitted in court that he met the witness for the first time only during the investigation.[21] Absent any ill-motive, this Court can only conclude that his act in imputing the responsibility for the crime on appellant stemmed from a legitimate desire to bring the perpetrator to justice.[22] As held in numerous decisions, when there is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution is moved by improper motives, such witness is entitled to full faith and credit.[23] | |||||