This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In sum, the Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court with regard to Talita's culpability. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the Court of Appeals correctly reduced the penalty for murder in Criminal Case 98-727 from death to reclusion perpetua.[26] Accordingly, this Court affirms the modification of penalties in Criminal Cases 98-728 and 98-729 for frustrated murder and attempted murder, respectively. But, while the trial court and the Court of Appeals commonly awarded P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the heirs of Marilou Tolentino in Criminal Case 98-727, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an award of P75,000.00.[27] All other monetary awards are sustained. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Juxtaposed against the prosecution's positive identification of the malefactors, appellants' defense of alibi crumbles. As we consistently held, alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[22] For alibi to prevail, clear and satisfactory proof must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that he was somewhere else.[23] | |||||
|
2002-10-15 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| was restored at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of June 25, 1992 does not necessarily show that there was no electricity in the crime scene at 7:30 in the evening of June 24, 1992 when the crime was committed. In fact, both employees never testified that there was power failure in the evening of that particular day (June 24). What is clear from the record, however, is that prosecution witnesses Roberto Asturias, Jr. and Jimmy Asturias categorically testified that at the time the victim was killed, the crime scene was illuminated by an electric bulb hanging from a tree two (2) meters away, thus enabling them to witness the killing.[27] The positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses prevails over the negative allegation of the defense. Affirmative testimony is stronger than a negative one especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[28] Where, as here, (1) the prosecution eyewitnesses were familiar with both the victim and the accused-appellants; (2) the locus criminis provided sufficient visibility; and (3) no improper motive can be attributed to them for testifying against the accused-appellants, the testimony of said witnesses commands greater weight.[29] Corollarily, there is nothing unnatural, as the defense would insist, on the part of Roberto Asturias, Jr. when he identified the accused-appellants as the persons who killed his father notwithstanding his traumatic experience of witnessing their criminal act. Contrary to the | |||||