This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-06-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In this regard, we give special significance to the RTC's unique position in assessing the credibility of witnesses, as the RTC has the unrestricted opportunity to observe firsthand the conduct and demeanor of witnesses at the trial.[17] Unless the trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts whose substance and value may affect the result of the case, we respect his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. From our own reading of the records, we find that S/G Gual gave clear and precise answers; no inconsistencies existed materially affecting their veracity. Neither was it shown that S/G Gual was driven by any improper motive to falsely testify against Briones. | |||||
|
2007-10-11 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The list of expenses cannot replace receipts when they should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions[29] as in the case of purchase of gasoline and of food. | |||||
|
2004-03-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| That the stabbing could not have been carried out in self-defense draws reinforcement from the failure of appellant Agsalog, a high school teacher at that, to report the incident to police authorities. In fact, when he was arrested on October 6, 1997, at 9:00 p.m., he "refused to sign."[24] | |||||
|
2003-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly overruled the appellant's defense of alibi. Alibi is a weak, if not the weakest of defenses in a criminal prosecution, because it is easy to concoct but hard to disprove. To serve as basis for acquittal, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence. For it to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was absent from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been present then.[35] In this case, the appellant avers that at the time of the stabbing incident, he was resting in the house of his cousin at 606 Nueve de Pebrero Street as he was suffering from stomach pain due to his ulcer.[36] But the appellant failed to adduce any medical certificate that he was suffering from the ailment. Moreover, Elisa positively identified the appellant as one of the men who repeatedly stabbed the victim. The appellant's defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward identification of the appellant as one of the victim's assailants. The appellant himself admitted that his cousin's house, the place where he was allegedly resting when the victim was stabbed, was merely ten to fifteen meters away from the scene of the stabbing. Indeed, the appellant's defense of denial and alibi, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive testimony of prosecution eyewitness Elisa Rolan.[37] | |||||
|
2003-05-29 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| With regard the civil liability of the appellant, the award by the trial court of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is in accord with recent jurisprudence. The widow of the victim is also entitled to P50,000.00 as moral damages for the anguish she suffered for the sudden death of her husband. As to the actual damages, it has been consistently ruled that the party must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. In People v. Judy Matore y Guevara,[27] we held that a list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions. Thus, in the case at bar, the transportation and hospitalization expenses which were not supported by receipts cannot be included in the computation. Moreover, the expenses relating to the 40th day and first year death anniversary of Fernando cannot be considered as actual expenses because of the lapse of a considerable time from his death.[28] The award of P44,000.00 granted by the trial court is therefore reduced to P27,040.00. | |||||
|
2003-02-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Besides, accused-appellant could only offer the defenses of denial and alibi. Denial is intrinsically a weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given 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 accused-appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and evidentiary weight.[25] Moreover, in the absence of proof that the prosecution witnesses are moved by improper motive, it is presumed that they were not so moved and, therefore, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[26] That presumption has not been overcome in this case. Rufina and Christopher were related to the victim. Considering their close relationship, their natural instinct would be to help bring the real culprit to justice. To blame an innocent man for the killing of the victim would serve them no purpose.[27] Accordingly, the identification of accused-appellant as one of the killers of Basilio must, perforce, prevail over the bare denial of accused-appellant. | |||||