This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| We have ruled that alibi is a weak defense and is viewed with disfavor by the courts, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. In order for alibi to prosper, appellant must prove that, first, he was somewhere else during the commission of the crime, and, second, that it was impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.[59] The defense fell short of meeting this burden. | |||||
|
2010-12-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Finally, both the trial court and the appellate court correctly disregarded appellant's alibi. Our ruling in People v. Jimenez[6] is instructive, thus: It is an established jurisprudential rule that a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him. The defense of alibi is likewise unavailing. Firstly, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. Secondly, alibi is unacceptable when there is a positive identification of the accused by a credible witness. Lastly, in order that alibi might prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused has been somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene. | |||||
|
2010-07-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The focal point of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of the witnesses, to be addressed primarily by the trial court, which is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[44] The manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility.[45] In essence, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality.[46] Accordingly, its findings are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would otherwise affect the result of the case. The assessment made by the trial court is even more enhanced when the Court of Appeals affirms the same, as in this case.[47] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We affirm the CA's awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.[29] The award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place. Moral damages, on the other hand, are awarded to rape victims without need of proof other than the fact of rape under the assumption that the victim suffered moral injuries from the experience she underwent. | |||||
|
2010-02-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Also, the victim's inability to remember the exact dates of the rape should not be taken against her. The exact time of the commission of the crime of rape is not a material ingredient of this crime. In this case, the victim was raped almost every night for a year by her mother's live-in partner, with her mother turning a deaf ear to her cries for help. Under these circumstances, we could not expect the victim to recall her harrowing experiences in an exact, detailed, and flawless testimony. Verily, as in this case, it is sufficient if the acts complained of are alleged to have taken place as near to the actual date at which the offenses are committed as the information or complaint will permit.[25] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven following the Revised Rules. Among those in the first set are People v. Laciste,[33] People v. Victor,[34] People v. Orilla,[35] People v. Calongui,[36] People v. Magbanua,[37] People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada,[38] People of the Philippines v. Jaime Cadag Jimenez,[39] and People of the Philippines v. Julio Manalili.[40] And in the second set are People v. Llave,[41] People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par,[42] and People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia.[43] Again, the difference between the two sets rests on when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules. | |||||