Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO GOMEZ

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 137554 2003-10-01	PEOPLE v. JOHN MAMARION PER CURIAM
It is axiomatic that alibi is inherently weak and unavailing,[89] and should be established with clear and convincing evidence in order to be acceptable.[90] The burden is upon the accused to present credible and tangible proof of
	GR No. 139907 2003-03-28	PEOPLE v. MARCELO BATES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the failure of the prosecution to present other witnesses, the rule is settled that the prosecution is imbued with the discretion to choose whom to present as witnesses.[15] The prosecution need not present each and every witness but only as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with for being merely corroborative in nature. This Court has ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses would not constitute suppression of evidence and would not be fatal to the prosecution's cause.[16] Hence, the non-presentation of Violeta Fuentes, Simon Fuentes and Junior Comesyon as witnesses for the prosecution is not fatal to its cause nor may it be considered suppression of evidence, as their testimonies would merely corroborate the earlier testimonies of Edgar and Concepcion.
	GR No. 134762 2002-07-23	PEOPLE v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ QUISUMBING, J.
choose to present.[28] The failure of the prosecution to present corroborative witnesses does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the testimony of said witnesses, if presented, would have adverse consequences to its cause.[29] After all, these witnesses are just as available to the defense for presentation, should it so desire. Finally, appellant points to certain perceived inconsistencies and contradictions in Mrs. Bates' account which, according to him, are sufficient to destroy her credibility, viz.: (1) She declared on direct examination that she went out of her house at 8:00 P.M. to
	GR No. 127368 2001-12-03	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR DREW QUISUMBING, J.
Appellants fault the prosecution for its failure to present these other eyewitnesses. But it is the prerogative of the prosecution to decide, in the presentation of its case, the number of witnesses it may choose to present.[27] Moreover, it is not the number of witnesses against the accused but the quality and weight of their testimonies that are crucial. The truthful testimony of one eyewitness might suffice to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[28] Since Militante's story dovetails with and is corroborated by Sopeña's account and absent any showing that Militante had an axe to grind against appellants, his testimony deserves full faith and credence.
	GR No. 129532 2000-10-05	PEOPLE v. VICENTE HILOT QUISUMBING, J.
This Court has ruled consistently that alibi is an inherently weak defense[28] and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[29] Moreover, for alibi to overcome the prosecution's evidence, the defense must successfully prove the element of physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene at the time of the perpetration of the offense.[30] Physical impossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was, but more importantly, the accessibility between these points.[31] In this case, the element of physical impossibility of appellant's presence that fateful night at the crime scene has not been established.