This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-05-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In any criminal prosecution, the defenses of denial and frame-up, like alibi, are considered weak defenses and have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for they can just as easily be concocted but are difficult to prove.[31] Negative in their nature, bare denials and accusations of frame-up cannot, as a rule, prevail over the affirmative testimony of truthful witnesses.[32] | |||||
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to Bayacsan, he candidly admitted in court that he considered appellant his friend and he wanted to protect him and hence, he only disclosed appellant's admission to him when the police started questioning him. There is no rule that the suspect in a crime should immediately be named by a witness.[86] Different people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard form of human behavior when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience.[87] The Court understands the natural reluctance or aversion of some people to get involved in a criminal case.[88] More so where, as in these cases, a townmate of Bayanes and Bayacsan is involved. We have taken notice that when their townmates are involved in a criminal case, most people turn reticent.[89] Hence, the failure of Bayanes and Bayacsan to immediately volunteer information to the police investigators will not lessen the probative value of their respective testimonies. The delay, having been satisfactorily explained, has no effect on their credibility.[90] | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| advantage of their greater number. They must have notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in the commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders' deliberate intent to do so.[10] There was no clear indication in this case that the accused-appellant and his companions purposely used their joint efforts to consummate the crime. Consequently, the crime committed by accused-appellant was only homicide. | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserve more credence and evidentiary weight. Accordingly, the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses must, perforce, prevail over the bare denials by the accused. Where there is positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, their denial and alibi cannot be sustained.[9] Alibi is a defense that can easily be fabricated. To serve as basis for acquittal, it must be established with clear and convincing evidence. For it to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were absent from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, | |||||