This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Corollarily, appellant's bare denial must likewise fail. It is well settled that denial is an intrinsically weak defense, which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[61] Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the child-victim of the identity of appellant and his involvement in the crime attributed to him. | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The defense of denial is an intrinsically weak defense, which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[23] It is merely a negative and self-serving allegation that cannot be given any weight on the scale of justice.[24] And although denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases, mere bare assertions to this effect cannot overcome the positive, straightforward, unequivocal and categorical testimony of the victim. It is an established rule that an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially so when it comes from a credible witness.[25] Likewise, it is hornbook doctrine that such positive and categorical testimony of a rape victim-daughter, identifying her own father as the one who sexually attacked her, prevails over his bare denial because no daughter will charge a father, especially a good father, with rape. The charge is not only embarrassing to the victim and the family. It means death to the head of the family. A father so charged cannot exculpate himself by a bare-bone denial.[26] | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As compared to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the bare denial and alibi offered by the appellant as a defense cannot hold water. It is well-settled that denial is an intrinsically weak defense, which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[28] A mere denial, like alibi, constitutes self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. [29] For alibi to succeed as a defense, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.[30] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. x x x." (Underscoring ours) In the review of rape cases, we are guided by certain precepts: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (b) the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution since, by the very nature of the crime, only two (2) persons are normally involved; and (c) if the complainant's testimony is convincingly credible, the accused may be convicted of the crime.[17] | |||||