This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's bare-faced defense of denial cannot surmount the positive and affirmative testimony offered by the prosecution. It is well-settled that positive declarations of a prosecution witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused.[28] A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters.[29] Denial is an inherently weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[30] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's bare-faced defense of denial cannot surmount the positive and affirmative testimony offered by the prosecution. It is well-settled that positive declarations of a prosecution witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused.[28] A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters.[29] Denial is an inherently weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[30] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant assails the inconsistencies in Christine's statements on whether appellant totally undressed her or inserted his penis through a hole in her shorts. These inconsistencies cannot exculpate appellant. Whether appellant raped Christine after undressing her or inserted his penis through a hole in her shorts is immaterial. Rape could take place under either situation. Besides, it is natural for inconsistencies to creep into the testimony of a rape victim who is of tender age like Christine. Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape.[42] Inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.[43] A rape victim is not expected to mechanically keep in memory details of the rape incident and then when called to testify automatically give an accurate account of the traumatic experience she suffered.[44] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In his defense, appellant merely denied raping Jenelyn. Appellant insinuates that the charges were filed because he punishes the children of Linda Alcontin, including Jenelyn, to discipline them. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense, which the accused must buttress with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[33] Appellant did not even attempt to corroborate any material allegation in his testimony. A mere denial constitutes negative evidence, which does not deserve greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[34] | |||||
|
2004-03-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| judgment therefor. In the course of the proceedings, the defendants adduced in evidence a copy of the Deed of Donation as certified by the RTC of Bulacan on May 29, 1996.[32] | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As to damages, the trial court awarded the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and exemplary damages, P83,900.00 as actual damages and P15,000.00 as attorney's fees plus costs of suit. In rape with homicide, the death indemnity was increased to P100,000.00 because the prevailing jurisprudence is that P50,000.00 for death and P50,000.00 for rape.[34] However, the award of moral damages is reduced to P50,000.00[35] while the exemplary damages and attorney's fees are deleted for lack of legal basis and the award of actual damages is likewise reduced to P18,000.00.[36] | |||||
|
2000-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We find complainant's testimony credible, while appellant's defenses of alibi and denial are lacking in truth and candor. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant.[19] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.[20] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[21] We find that despite his stance that several persons watched him demonstrate how to cook banana chips in Ubay, Bohol in the morning of November 16, 1989,[22] appellant failed to present any disinterested witness to support his claim. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused show he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, but there must also be clear and convincing proof that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[23] | |||||