This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-08-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Likewise, it was stated in Estoya that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Notably, these defenses crumble in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.[54] An alibi is evidence negative in nature and self-serving, and, thus, cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[55] In the present case, AAA positively identified accused-appellant in her testimony as the very perpetrator of the crime of rape committed against her, to wit: Q: While you were sleeping, do you remember any untoward incident that happened to you? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: What was that? A: Somebody carried me, ma'am. Q: Who carried you? A: My father, ma'am. Q: Where did he bring you? A: From the bed, he brought me to the floor. Q: Why do you have light in the room? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: What is that light? A: Electric light, ma'am. Q: After carrying you and brought [sic] you to the floor, what did he do to you? A: He removed his t-shirt and tied my mouth. Q: You mean to say he used his t-shirt in tying your mouth? A: He tied his t-shirt covering my mouth. Q: After removing his t-shirt and tying your mouth, what did he do next? A: He removed my t-shirt and short[s], ma'am. Q: When he undressed you, what happened next? A: He also removed his short[s] and brief, ma'am, and he also removed my panty. Q: After undressing himself and undressed [sic] you, what happened next? A: He inserted his pennis [sic] into my vagina, ma'am. Q: While inserting his pennis [sic] into your vagina, did he utter something to you? A: He ordered me not to report the incident to my mother because they just quarell [sic]. Q: Did your two (2) sisters wake up? A: No ma'am. Q: Can you estimate what time was that? A: Its [sic] already late at that time, ma'am. Q: Aside from putting his pennis [sic] into your vagina, what are the things that he do [sic] to you? Atty Doran: That is assuming the fact, your honor. Prosecutor Ugale: I will reform my question, your honor. Prosecutor Ugale: Q: Is that all the things that he did to you? A: Not only that, ma'am. Q: What else did he do to you? A: He out my shorts and panty and my t-shirt, he dressed himself [sic] and then he put me back to be beside my sister then he untied me. Q: What did you feel when your father inserted his pennis [sic] into your vagina? A: I felt pain, ma'am. Q: Did he also kiss you? A: He kissed my cheek, ma'am. Q: Did he kiss your lips? A: No ma'am. Q: How about your neck? A: No ma'am. Q: What did you feel when your papa inserted his pennis [sic] into your vagina? A: It is hard and I felt pain.[56] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, it has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.[41] It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[42] Thus, there being no strong and credible evidence adduced to overcome the testimony of AAA, no weight can be given to the alibi of accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| To be liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.[29] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Against AAA's straightforward testimony, accused-appellant raises the defense of alibi, stating that he was at work from 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. To successfully invoke alibi, however, an accused must establish with clear and convincing evidence not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[12] Accused-appellant offers nothing but his bare word that he was elsewhere, and his word must fail against AAA's testimony and positive identification of him as the perpetrator. He could not present any corroborating witness or evidence to prove his presence elsewhere than at the scene of the crime. It is well-settled that positive identification, where categorical, consistent, and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight in law.[13] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, it has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.[35] It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[36] Thus, there being no strong and credible evidence adduced to overcome the testimony of Rosemarie pointing to him as one of the culprits, no weight can be given to accused-appellant Orias' alibi. | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Even so, we have held time and again that witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time. Indeed, even the most candid witness often makes mistakes and falls into confused statements, at times. Far from eroding the effectiveness of their testimonial evidence, such lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity.[31] The victim's house is a nipa hut of modest size. In all likelihood, Gavina was able to catch a glimpse of the appellants' companions through the open window or door as she was approaching the victim's body. Also, it is worth noting that while the 9 mm. cartridges were found at Gomez's yard, the shooting took place inside his home. Besides, the Firearms Identification Report[32] did not conclusively establish the caliber of the gun used to shoot the victim because the bullet extracted from his body was deformed. More importantly, witness Joey Bobis cannot be expected to identify with certainty the caliber of the guns used absent any proof that he is a gun expert. | |||||