This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2004-08-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, on the issue of Johnny Rey's guilt, we are in agreement that in the absence of strong and convincing evidence, his defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the assailant by an eyewitness who has no ill motive to testify falsely.[22] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, we are not unduly impressed by appellant's reliance on Amelou's affidavit before the police to discredit her testimony in court. As a rule, affidavits taken ex parte are considered to be incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, or even lack of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for their accurate recollection.[49] Hence, affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to declarations in open court. | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As correctly held by the trial court, accused-appellant's defense of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the clear, positive and convincing testimony of PO1 Molato. In the light of the positive identification of accused-appellant as one of the assailants, his denial and alibi cannot be sustained. The positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defenses are negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[13] | |||||
|
2003-02-27 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| These requisites are present in the case at bar. The injuries sustained by the victim were serious enough to make the declarant conscious of impending death, which in fact occurred even before he reached the hospital. His declaration, which identified his assailants, referred to the cause of his death. The declarant was competent to testify as a witness if he had been called upon to give testimony in court. The declarant's dying declaration was offered in this case wherein he is the victim. Having satisfied all the aforementioned requisites, the trial court did not err in admitting in evidence the victim's dying declaration. A dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule, because of its necessity and trustworthiness:[81] Necessity, because the declarant's death makes it impossible for him to take the witness stand; and trustworthiness, because when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth.[82] | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the light of the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, his defense of denial and alibi cannot be sustained. Well-settled is the rule that the positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defenses are negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[16] | |||||
|
2003-01-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[32] Furthermore, they cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of appellant by the offended party.[33] Absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, a categorical, consistent and positive identification of the accused prevails over denial and alibi.[34] Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, denial and alibi are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[35] | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| surrounding circumstances of such death; (3) the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify; (4) the declarant thereafter dies; and (5) the declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry.[20] In the case at bar, all the above requisites are present. The victim's statement that, "Auntie, kon mapatay ako, ang nagbuno sa akon si Gerry Bartolo" ("Auntie, if I die, the one who stabbed me was Gerry Bartolo"),[21] while desperately trying | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole, particularly when, as in this case, there was consistency in the narration of the principal occurrence and in the positive identification of the accused.[29] Moreover, minor inconsistencies can serve to strengthen the witnesses' credibility as the variances are taken as badges of truth rather than as indicia of falsehood inasmuch as they negate the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[30] As a whole, the testimony of Vic Villegas shows that he was consistent in saying that he was beside the victim,[31] that the accused came from behind,[32] that he saw the face of the accused as he passed by him before stabbing the | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| premeditation. Orbino did not testify on the events that led to the stabbing. Hence, there is no showing whether the attack was swift and unexpected; or whether the victim did not expect the attack or gave the slightest provocation. In order to appreciate treachery as a modifying circumstance in a continuous aggression, it must be shown to have been present at the inception of the attack.[19] Moreover, the fact that the fatal wounds were found at the back of the deceased does not, by itself, compel a finding of treachery. It is not enough that the means employed by the malefactor gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate as when the attack | |||||