This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-07-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| "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. In this case, the element of physical impossibility of appellant's presence that fateful night at the crime scene has not been established."[15] | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Positive identification of a culprit is of great weight in determining whether an accused is guilty or not.[51] Gemma, in claiming the defense of mistaken identity, is in reality denying her involvement in the crime. This Court has held that the defense of denial is insipid and weak as it is easy to fabricate and difficult to prove; thus, it cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[52] The defense of denial is unavailing when placed astride the undisputed fact that there was positive identification of the accused.[53] | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| We likewise find no merit in this argument. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, method, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[42] For treachery to qualify the killing to murder, the following must be proved: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[43] | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[28] Two essential elements must, therefore, be established, to wit: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[29] | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor does the 15-month delay in Consulta's reporting of the incident to the police destroy his credibility as a witness and the probative value of his testimony. Fear of reprisal, death threats, and even a natural reluctance to be involved in a criminal case have been accepted as adequate explanations for the delay in reporting crimes.[32] | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Concerning damages, the award of P40,245.00 as actual damages should be deleted, there being no credible proof thereof, inasmuch as courts should recognize only substantiated expenses, which have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim.[52] The receipts offered here are not in the name of the victim's wife, Josefina San Juan, or any other immediate family member of the victim. The date of said receipts is more than a year after the death of the victim. Thus, the said receipts are not acceptable and have no evidentiary value in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2001-03-05 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| For alibi to prosper as defense, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence because it is easily manufactured and usually unreliable such that it can rarely be given credence. It is not enough that the accused was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[19] This accused-appellant failed to do. By his own statements, accused-appellant admitted that it was possible for him to go leave the party, kill the victim and go back to the party unnoticed. It must be remembered that there was a drinking spree with more than fifteen guests at the party. Hence, it would not be unlikely that his absence for a period of more than an hour would go unobserved. | |||||