This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It cannot be over-emphasized that appellant admitted hitting the victim and leaving her on the side of the road. His gratuitous allegations that he did not rape AAA and that he ran away because he thought he had killed her do not inspire concurrence. Denial is the weakest of defenses for, like alibi, it is easy to fabricate and concoct.[18] Appellant offered nothing in support of his denial. Not one witness was presented to testify on his whereabouts soon after the incident. After admitting to the assault of a 14-year-old girl, he cannot plausibly expect this Court to believe that something else caused her defloration. Faced with all the established facts of this case, however, appellant's mere denial cannot hold water. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the case before us, the accused-employee has escaped and refused to surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he is deemed to have abandoned his appeal. Consequently, the judgment against him has become final and executory.[17] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The kinship of the defense witnesses to accused Noel Galvez is not the deciding factor as to why the trial court gave little weight to their testimonies. Rather, it is the fact that the defense witnesses testified to support an alibi. Appellant correctly asserts that standing by itself mere relationship to a party does not automatically discredit a witness. However, if that witness testifies to support the specific defense of alibi, courts view his testimony with skepticism.[11] This is due to the very nature of alibi that the witness affirms. One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it.[12] When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism. | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We now come to the defense of alibi and denial raised by the two remaining appellants, namely Cesar Tejero and Lucio Porton. It is settled that for alibi to prosper as a defense, the accused must show that they were so far away that they could not have been physically present at the place of the crime at the time of its commission and their presence elsewhere renders it impossible for them to be the guilty parties.[32] In this case, the trial court estimated the distance of Cesar's house from the auditorium to be a mere 20 meters, and that of Lucio to be a mere 50 meters.[33] Given the relative proximity of the locus criminis established by the trial court, the appellants' defense of alibi must necessarily fail. | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In this case, with regard to the question of actual damages, only the testimony of Socorro Sarabosing, the victim's sister, was presented to prove the amount of the same. Such testimony is insufficient to support the claim for actual damages.[52] Actual damages must be substantiated by documentary evidence, such as receipts, in order to prove burial expenses and loss of income incurred as a result of the death of the victim.[53] Consequently, the award of actual damages must be disallowed. | |||||