Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JONATHAN CRISANTO Y OPIN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185726 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. DARWIN BERNABE Y GARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As to accused-appellant's defenses of alibi and denial, he must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses on one hand and the bare denial of accused-appellant on the other, the former must perforce prevail. Accused-appellant's alibi does not meet the requirement of physical impossibility as he was within the immediate vicinity of the scene of the crime. The manukan was merely five (5) streets away from his house, while Manuyo II is also within Las Piñas City. In People v. Crisanto,[31] the Court reiterated: It is jurisprudentially-embedded that where the distance between the scene of the crime and the alleged whereabouts of the accused is only two (2) kilometers, three (3) kilometers, or even five (5) kilometers, the same are not considered to be too far as to preclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis, even if the sole means of traveling between the two places at that time was only by walking. xxx
	GR NOS. 142369-70 2007-04-13	JUANITO T. MERENCILLO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses' honesty.[24] The test is whether the testimonies agree on essential facts and whether the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other so as to make a consistent and coherent whole.[25] Thus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be successfully invoked as grounds for acquittal.[26]
	GR No. 142874 2002-07-31	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO ABAYON PER CURIAM
is positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses.[14] Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[15] We note that the accused failed to establish that they could not be at the vicinity of the Alibio house when the rape and killing took place. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met.[16] The accused must not only prove their presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense but they must also demonstrate that it would be impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[17] As for the imputation that witness Vicente Dauba had an axe to grind against Jose Abayon and Ireneo de Leon and thus was impelled by an improper motive in testifying for the prosecution, this was also properly disregarded by the trial court. While Jose Abayon and Ireneo de
	GR No. 130657 2002-04-01	PEOPLE v. ERICTO APPEGU Y MATERUM YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Calog Norte is only five (5) kilometers away from Sitio Bannag. We have ruled in a catena of cases that where the distance between the scene of the crime and the alleged whereabouts of the accused is only two (2) kilometers, three (3) kilometers, or even five (5) kilometers, that distance is not considered too far as to preclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis, even if the sole means of traveling between the two places at that time was only by walking.[18]
	GR No. 139578 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. MANUEL BANIEGA Y MORALES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses, on the one hand, and the bare denial of accused-appellant, on the other hand, 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. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are 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.[14]