This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Likewise, in an attempt to extricate her father, Naning stated that Cerezo told his father that it was not appellant who shot him.[21] Despite that, she claimed that because other people were saying otherwise, the elder Cerezo boxed her father. Such statement further destroys the credibility of the defense. There is no explanation why persons, while not even named or identified who were supposedly at the scene of the crime, would point to the appellant as the assailant when he was even the one who supposedly called the father of the wounded victim. It must be remembered that not only must a witness be credible in order to be believed; his or her testimony must itself be also credible and believable.[22] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| For the foregoing reasons, although denial and alibi are generally held to be weak and unavailing, these defenses gain commensurate strength when the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is wanting and questionable and when the evidence for the prosecution is frail and effete.[47] The prosecution cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the defense but must depend on the strength of its own evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.[48] | |||||