Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOVITO BARONA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188322 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Unfortunately, Asilan's bare denial, when juxtaposed with the prosecution witnesses' positive declarations, is not worthy of credence. Denial, which is the usual refuge of offenders, is an inherently weak defense, and must be buttressed by other persuasive evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. The defense of denial fails even more when the assailant, as in this case, was positively identified by credible witnesses, against whom no ulterior motive could be ascribed.[40]
	GR No. 144343 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. RICSON PARRENO Y ATIDO CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the case at bar, Anthony and his friends had merely gone out to buy some food. The appellants and their companions chanced upon the victim's group, and without warning, threatened the latter. A game of "cat and mouse" ensued, with the appellants on the winning end, as they were armed with a tirador and a knife. The chase ended with the unarmed victim, Anthony, being cornered and trapped, and thereafter, stabbed fatally on the back. With the allegation of treachery in the information having been proven, the same is treated as a circumstance that qualified the killing to murder, pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Revised Penal Code.[49]
	GR No. 133918 2000-09-13	PEOPLE v. TIBOY ALBACIN PUNO, J.
On the other hand, in a bid to exculpate himself, the accused interposed the defense of denial and alibi. These defenses prove futile when juxtaposed with Florencio's positive identification of accused Albacin as Teresita's and his assailant. Considered as inherently weak defenses, alibi and denial must be buttressed by other convincing evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[51] It all the more fails in light of the positive identification made by a credible witness who has no ill-motive to testify against the accused as in the case at bar.[52]
	GR No. 128821 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ORIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Even more recently, in People v. Jovito Barona, et al.,[32] we emphatically said "[t]hat the findings of facts of the court a quo and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate tribunals."[33]