This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-09-11 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals sweepingly brushed aside Liangco's testimony and was persuaded by Macabulos' rebuttal testimony denying that she had spoken to Liangco about the incident. The rule is that the positive and categorical assertions of witnesses generally prevail over bare denials. Such accordance of greater probative value to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is negative in character is a time-honored principle.[20] Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. [21] Accordingly, Liangco's testimony that he was informed about the incident must be upheld. | |||||
|
2003-11-12 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We award moral damages of P50,000 for each count of rape as moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without need of pleading or proof.[32] We also award civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 for each count of rape in the light of the ruling that civil indemnity, which is distinct from moral damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[33] We likewise award exemplary damages of P25,000 for each count of rape consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter. [34] | |||||
|
2003-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In sum, the defense of denial and alibi interposed by appellants cannot prevail over their positive identification by the victim. It is a time-honored principle that the positive and categorical assertions of a witness generally prevail over bare denials.[60] In the case against Apuyan, greater probative value and evidentiary weight must be accorded to Melanie's unwavering and categorical identification of appellant Apuyan as one of her tormentors over this appellant's feeble, self-serving, and uncorroborated denial. Affirmative testimony from a credible witness is stronger and more trustworthy than a bare negative testimony.[61] | |||||