This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Against the clear and corroborating testimonies of the complainants' witnesses, all the respondent could raise was a vehement blanket denial. This Court has repeatedly proclaimed that a "denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters." [30] Hence, respondent's denial cannot be given greater weight over the testimony of the complainants' witnesses. | |||||
|
2004-08-12 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| A recourse to the records shows that no reversible error was committed by the CA when it gave credence to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as opposed to petitioner's bare denials. Denial, like alibi, is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of such positive testimonies.[25] Being a self-serving negative evidence, denial cannot be given greater weight than credible declarations on affirmative matters.[26] Well-established is the rule that between the negative averments of the accused and the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses, the latter deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[27] | |||||