This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In an attempt to exculpate himself, Cuesta alleges that it would have been impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time Duardo was stabbed as he was in Bulacan for a drug operation. De la Cruz attempted to corroborate Cuesta's alibi by testifying that he engaged Cuesta to drive for him and other police officers in a purported drugs surveillance operation. The Court takes judicial notice that each step taken in a drugs-related activity is heavily documented considering that in the prosecution thereof, the issue of chain of custody, more often than not, is the deciding factor in the conviction or acquittal of the accused. In this case, Cuesta could have easily presented documentary evidence to support his claim of the conduct of drugs surveillance in Bulacan, but he failed to do so. Interestingly, the existence of the drug operations allegedly conducted by PDEA merely hinges on the bare assertions of Cuesta and de la Cruz, with no other evidence to support the same. "An alibi, without any clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law."[15] An alibi, furthermore, deserves scant consideration in the face of a clear identification of the accused. The positive identification of Cuesta by witness Bartolome prevails over his unsubstantiated alibi. In People v. Consorte,[16] the Court disregarded the alibi of the accused therein, to wit:In any case, the positive identification of the appellant by witnesses destroys the defense of alibi. Alibi warrants the least credibility, or none at all and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses. Absent any ill motive on the part of witnesses, their positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime prevails over the defense of denial or alibi.[17] | |||||
|
2015-11-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is an established doctrine that "factual findings of the trial court [which are supported by evidence], especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal."[26] | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As regards accused-appellant's civil liability, the RTC ordered him to pay AAA in the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court's decision by granting the additional award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and reducing the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.00. In accordance, however, to People v. Lumaho,[38] where the penalty for the crime committed is death which cannot be imposed because of Republic Act No. 9346, we increase the amounts of indemnity and damages to be imposed as follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, we impose 6% interest per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.[39] | |||||