This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Second. The defense of alibi and denial interposed by accused-appellant does not deserve credence. For alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must not only prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was in another place at the time of the commission of the felony but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene when the crime took place.[28] In this case, it cannot be denied that accused-appellant's house, where he claimed to have been sleeping at the time the crime was committed, was very near the Seven Eatery and the Philtranco Bus Station. In addition, Corazon Mileton's testimony that accused-appellant was sleeping at home when the crime took place cannot be given weight in view of the fact that she herself was asleep in their house at that time.[29] When an accused's alibi can only be confirmed by his relatives, who may not be impartial witnesses, his denial of culpability merits scant consideration.[30] On the other hand, accused-appellant's identification by credible prosecution witnesses as the author of the crime makes his alibi indefensible.[31] | |||||
|
2001-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Despite rigorous cross-examination, Fe Claros remained consistent and steadfast as to the material elements of the crime, that she heard two shots coming from the billiard area, that she went outside to find out what was going on, and that she saw accused-appellant behind her brother, pointing a gun at the latter's head and pulling the trigger although the gun no longer fired after the third shot. The matters raised by accused-appellant did not touch upon these established facts. We have repeatedly held that minor and inconsequential flaws in the testimony of witnesses strengthen rather than weaken their credibility. The test is whether their testimonies agree on the essential facts and substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole.[29] In this case, Fe Claros' testimony meets the standard of credibility. | |||||
|
2001-04-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The defense cites inconsistencies in Remigio Cañete's testimony and his affidavit.[40] The discrepancies between statements of the affiant in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand are not necessarily a cause for discrediting a witness.[41] Ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete and inaccurate.[42] The failure of Remigio Cañete to mention in his affidavit the presence of accused-appellant Leonilo Tumayao during the incident does not affect his testimony in which he implicated accused-appellant. He categorically stated in court that he saw accused-appellant Leonilo Tumayao hold the deceased's hands while accused-appellant Eduardo Tumayao stabbed the deceased.[43] In the absence of evidence supporting his alibi, we find that Leonilo was indeed present at the crime scene on the night the killing of Romulo Cañete took place and that he conspired with accused-appellant Eduardo Tumayao in the same. This conclusion disposes of accused-appellant's contention that there was no one with whom Eduardo Tumayao could have conspired as Leonilo Tumayao was not present at the time of the incident. | |||||