This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-08-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Estoya,[51] this Court laid down the jurisprudential guidelines in assessing the proffered defense of alibi. Particularly: Jurisprudential rules and precepts guide this Court in assessing the proffered defense. One, alibis and denials are generally disfavored by the courts for being weak. Two, they cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. Three, for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Fourth, alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible and disinterested witnesses. Fifth, alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses, and the assessment made by the trial court -- unless patently and clearly inconsistent -- must be accepted.[52] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties.[66] In this regard, we find ample evidence to establish treachery. The CA's advertence to the stipulation of facts contained in the Pre-Trial Order dated December 20, 2000[67] is misplaced. This alleged stipulation was stricken off the record on motion of the prosecution on the ground that no stipulation of such fact was made.[68] | |||||