This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The general rule may be that where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and that their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[86] In this case, however, there are sufficient circumstances and discrepancies in Ronnel Bawalan's testimony that impel this Court to look at his version of the facts with reasonable skepticism. | |||||
|
2014-07-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| More importantly, the Court gives even less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives. One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, as in this case, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.[16] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We have held that for alibi to prosper, it is necessary that the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[34] | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As to the damages awarded, the Court affirms the grant of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. The award of civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime, while moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. The Court likewise affirms the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages, which are awarded when the Court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.[43] The Court further awards P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength in the commission of the crime, and to set an example for the public good.[44] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| For alibi to succeed as a defense, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence, first, his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense, and second, the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. [30] The concept of physical impossibility refers not only to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, but also to the facility of access between the two places. [31] The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. [32] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. [33] | |||||