This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-02-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's bare denial that he did not kill his wife is a negative and self-serving assertion which merits no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[31] The prosecution witnesses were not shown to have any ill-motive to fabricate the charge of parricide against appellant nor to falsely testify against him. | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There is no dispute that the prosecution failed to adduce direct evidence showing that petitioner took the money mentioned in the ten informations because no one saw him in flagrante delicto, that is, in the very act of committing a crime. However, the lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of an accused cannot be proved by evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt since circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant its absence.[44] The crime charged may also be proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence.[45] Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which "goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue."[46] Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting felons free.[47] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Denial is inherently a weak defense as it is negative and self-serving.[43] It cannot prevail over the positive identification and testimony of witnesses unless buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.[44] In the case at bar, Ronilo testified that appellant had struck Conrado with a piece of wood on the head. Simplicio declared that appellant was at the crime scene during the attack while Donald stated that shortly before the incident, Conrado was in the company of appellant. Appellant had not presented any evidence to counter the afore-stated testimonies. | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner had denied having committed the crime charged. She, however, had failed to present sufficient evidence to support her disclaim of any liability. As the defense of denial is inherently weak for being negative and self-serving, and the petitioner failed to substantiate the same, the positive and categorical declarations of the prosecution witnesses must prevail.[39] | |||||