This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-06-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently held that positive identification cannot be overcome by alibi and denial.[16] In the case at bar, two (2) relatives of the victim, namely his wife Ladella and his son Madge, have positively identified appellant Romeo and accused Renato as the ones who attacked, hacked and stabbed the hapless victim to death. No evidence was presented showing ill-motive on the part of Ladella and her son to point to Romeo as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged. In the absence of a proof of improper motive, their testimonies are not affected by their relationship to the victim.[17] Relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the victim does not necessarily categorize the former as biased and interested and thus tarnish their testimonies.[18] In fact, the witnesses' relationship to the victim makes their testimonies even more reliable. It is highly doubtful that the wife and son of the victim would aid in the prosecution of the appellant simply because they wanted someone, i.e., anyone, to answer for the murder of their loved one. Indeed, it can not be lightly supposed that relatives of the victim would callously violate their conscience to avenge the death of a dear one by blaming it on persons whom they believe to be innocent thereof.[19] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The alibi of petitioner Rivera, corroborated by his wife, brother and sister, that he was working in the field in Barangay Cacandiungan, Natividad, Pangasinan, on 18 January 1989 when the crime was committed, cannot prosper. The element of physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene at the time of the perpetration of the crime does not obtain.[9] As correctly found by the trial court, petitioner admitted that the distance between his farm in Barangay Cacandiungan and his own house, which was only 200 meters away from the scene of the crime, could be travelled by walking in less than an hour;[10] in fact, it could have been traversed in less than ten (10) minutes! We have ruled time and again that where the distance did not render it impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime, the defense of alibi must preclude the possibility that petitioner could have been physically present at the place of the crime at or about the time of its commission. Further, the alibi and denial of petitioner cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and their clear identification of him as having been physically present at the scene of the crime and killing his victim.[11] | |||||