This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We cannot see ill-motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Mrs. Villar and Mrs. Richardson. As widows of the victims, they have more reason to desire punishment for the real perpetrators of the crime. It is unnatural for a victim's relative interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[36] Human nature tells us that the aggrieved relatives would want the real killer punished for their loss, and not accept a mere scapegoat to take the rap for the real malefactor.[37] | |||||
|
2006-06-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appearance[55] were both dated August 5, 1996. Her bus ticket to Catbalogan revealed that she left Manila at 9:30 a.m. on August 10, 1996.[56] By her own admission, she arrived in Catbalogan on the day when the theft occurred, August 11, 1996, albeit at 2:00 p.m.,[57] which was four hours after the alleged theft. It is well-settled that alibi prevails only if it is shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime.[58] It is clear from the foregoing evidence that it was | |||||