This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-04-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A scrutiny of the records show that the trial court did not err in finding conspiracy among the appellants, as they each played a role in the commission of the crime. The trial court correctly found the denial of appellant Dima that he had knowledge of the kidnapping, unbelievable. The appellant's bare denial is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of him. Jurisprudence gives greater weight to the positive narration of prosecution witnesses than to the negative testimonies of the defense.[32] The trial court ruled: As for accused Montanir, again, this Court finds the testimonies of prosecution witnesses more credible than his testimony applying the same principle that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from a mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such that the common experience and observation of mankind can show it as probable under the circumstances. | |||||
|
2004-12-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As a rule, a court should not take judicial notice of evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been brought before it or have been heard by and are actually pending before it. This rule is especially true in criminal cases, in which the accused have the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses presented against them.[13] Moreover, when a separate trial is granted, the testimony of the accused imputing the crime to the co-accused is not admissible against the latter, who has had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.[14] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| refused to give any weight to the Morning Reports presented by Domingo showing that he was on duty on the dates Gale stated as these documents do not appear to be tamper-proof,[83] and that they do not accurately reflect absences of Air Force personnel out on a pass.[84] Aside from this, prosecution witness Brgy. Capt. Marlon Villa testified that he saw Domingo whom he knows as "Jack", together with Roger Biona at the Odiongan barrio fiesta on June 29, 1995,[85] and again, on the first week of July 1995 also in Brgy. Odiongan although they didn't talk to each other,[86] while Gale positively identified Domingo as the alias "Jack" who was part of their group.[87] Given these testimonies, the trial court was correct in disregarding Domingo's alibi as jurisprudence gives greater weight to the positive narration of prosecution witnesses than to the negative testimonies of the defense.[88] The defense of appellant Harisco is denial and alibi. The Court will first deal on her alibi. Her defense of denial will be taken up together with that of appellant Maclang. | |||||