This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| For there to be robbery, there must be taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person or by using force upon on things.[23] Both the RTC and the CA concluded that robbery was committed based on the testimonies of Maria Castillo, SPO3 Mendoza, and PO1 Coronel. A closer look at the testimonies of these witnesses, however, failed to convince us that indeed robbery took place. | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances. In criminal prosecution, the court is always guided by evidence that is tangible, verifiable and in harmony with the usual course of human experience and not by mere conjecture or speculation. Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are necessarily accorded little weight or credence.[27] Besides, instigation, or the appellant's claim of a frame-up, is a defense that has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor because the same can easily be concocted and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[28] Thus, in People vs. Bongalon,[29] the Court held:As we have earlier stated, the appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. We are not unaware of the perception that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be, concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemen's alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
|||||
| On the other hand, private complainants Myrna Abalora,[15] Leonora Amora,[16] Nenita Alap-ap,[17] Imelda Montero,[18] Margarita Redillas,[19] Carmelita Elcamel[20] and Rolando Siplon[21] also executed their respective affidavits of desistance declaring that they were no longer interested to prosecute these cases.[22] | |||||