This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-06-01 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses, on the one hand, and the bare denial of Ocden, on the other, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when the former comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Denial, same as an alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It is considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated and concocted.[25] | |||||
|
2003-07-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In any event, the prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as witnesses. The prosecution need not present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with if they are merely corroborative in nature. We have ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute suppression of evidence and is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[12] | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Neither is the presentation of a witness to testify that appellant owned or was in possession of a .9 mm pistol. Besides, it is not for the courts, much more the defense, to dictate what evidence to present or who should take the witness stand at the trial of a case.[30] As this Court held in People v. Bulfango: [31] | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the failure of the prosecution to present other witnesses, the rule is settled that the prosecution is imbued with the discretion to choose whom to present as witnesses.[15] The prosecution need not present each and every witness but only as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with for being merely corroborative in nature. This Court has ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses would not constitute suppression of evidence and would not be fatal to the prosecution's cause.[16] Hence, the non-presentation of Violeta Fuentes, Simon Fuentes and Junior Comesyon as witnesses for the prosecution is not fatal to its cause nor may it be considered suppression of evidence, as their testimonies would merely corroborate the earlier testimonies of Edgar and Concepcion. | |||||
|
2002-12-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| recognized in court.[18] Hence, the same must be deleted. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals, finding petitioner Carlos Arvuna y Morban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide, attended by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and | |||||