Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN PETELUNA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194068 2014-07-09	PEOPLE v. BENJIE CONSORTE Y FRANCO PEREZ, J.
In the first place, appellant relies on alibi for his defense. As invariably held by this Court, however, alibi is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which it can be concocted.[10] Indeed, denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[11] For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[12] In the case at bench, the defense failed to present convincing evidence to reinforce appellant's denial and alibi. It is significant to note that the distance between Binangonan (the scene of the crime) and Antipolo (where appellant claimed he was at the time of the incident in question) is only about twenty (20) kilometers.
	GR No. 196735 2014-05-05	PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO LEONEN, J.
It is settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the victim.[149] In People v. Benjamin Peteluna,[150] this court stated that: It is a time-honored principle that the positive identification of the appellant by a witness destroys the defense of alibi and denial. Thus:
	GR No. 196735 2014-05-05	PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO LEONEN, J.
It is settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the victim.[149] In People v. Benjamin Peteluna,[150] this court stated that: It is a time-honored principle that the positive identification of the appellant by a witness destroys the defense of alibi and denial. Thus:
	GR No. 201092 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOEL AQUINO Y CENDANA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
According to jurisprudence, to be convicted of murder, the following must be established: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide.[21]
	GR No. 181444 2013-07-17	BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO Y BULAWAN v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification[,] is inherently weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[14]