This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, accused-appellant's bare denial and uncorroborated alibi deserve scant consideration. The defense of alibi should be considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easily fabricated.[25] Denial and alibi constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.[26] AAA's positive testimony that she was sexually ravished by accused-appellant, coupled with the appalling fact that she got pregnant at her tender age, certainly deserve more credence and greater evidentiary weight than that of accused-appellant's uncorroborated defenses. | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the observation of the lower courts that the testimony of "AAA" is worthy of credence. She positively identified appellant as her abuser. She did not waver on the material points of her testimony and maintained the same even on cross-examination. Indeed, her statements under oath are sufficient evidence to convict appellant for the crimes alleged in the Informations.[69] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We have decreed in People v. Nachor[29] that: Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. Between the positive assertions of the [victim] and the negative averments of the [appellant], the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[30] | |||||