This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-06-16 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Ganih claims that he was at Barangay Kaliantana on January 10, 2000 and joined the birthday celebration of Barangay Captain Hassan Arani on May 6, 2000. But it is not enough that he claims being elsewhere when the crime was committed. He also must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[27] | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Appellant is mistaken. There is treachery when a victim is set upon by the accused without warning; when the attack is sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim; or is, in any event, so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to defend himself, thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the assailant.[81] In order to sustain a finding of treachery, two conditions must be present, to wit: (1) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked not opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[82] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellants' defense of denial and alibi must likewise fail. As between their mere denial and their positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, the trial court did not err in according weight to the latter. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he was in another place at such a period of time and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission.[57] These requirements of time and place must be strictly met.[58] Appellants failed to establish that it was physically impossible for them to be at Arlegui Bridge, Quiapo, Manila on May 3, 2000 at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon. What is clear from the evidence is that they were at Elizondo Street, Quiapo, Manila, a stone's throw away from Arlegui. It bears emphasis that their testimonies as to their whereabouts during their arrest were inconsistent. Appellant Bandang narrated during her direct testimony that she and appellant Abubakar were in a sidewalk store in Elizondo Street, Quiapo, Manila when they were suddenly accosted by the police officers. On cross-examination, she contradicted herself and claimed that she and appellant Abubakar were arrested inside their house.[59] For her part, appellant Salamat stated that the police forcibly dragged her and her daughter, appellant Bandang, inside a vehicle and it was only then that she saw appellant Abubakar.[60] Meanwhile, both appellants Salamat and Abubakar were silent on appellant Bandang's claim that the apprehending policemen demanded hush money from them. Undoubtedly, the inconsistencies in appellants' testimonies weaken their defense. They reveal concocted stories and a web of lies. | |||||
|
2004-02-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellants proffered the defense of denial and alibi. As between their mere denial and the positive identification and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, we are convinced that the trial court did not err in according weight to the latter. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he was in another place at such a period of time that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission.[116] These requirements of time and place must be strictly met.[117] A thorough examination of the evidence for the defense shows that the appellants failed to meet these settled requirements. They failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to be at the Ayala Center, Cebu City when the Chiong sisters were abducted. What is clear from the evidence is that Rowen, Josman, Ariel, Alberto, James Anthony and James Andrew were all within the vicinity of Cebu City on July 16, 1997. | |||||
|
2001-07-06 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| For the accusations against him, accused-appellant can only interpose the defense of alibi which, aside from his bare denials, was entirely unsubstantiated. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses an accused can invoke, and the courts have always looked upon it with caution, if not suspicion, not only because it is inherently unreliable but also because it is easy to fabricate.[12] | |||||