This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-10-01 |
CARPIO, ACTING C.J. |
||||
| In light of the positive testimony of Badua, Fieldad's self-serving defense of denial and alibi must fail. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, as it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove.[25] True, the conviction of an accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution evidence. Hence, when the prosecution evidence has firmly established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, conviction is in order. | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, neither Cleofe nor Leonardo was able to establish by clear and convincing evidence that not only was he somewhere else when Nelson was killed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. "By physical impossibility, we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was committed." [52] | |||||
|
2008-11-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To be believed, denial must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, it is purely self-serving.[30] Alibi, on the other hand, is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[31] For the appellant's defense of alibi to prosper, he should have proven that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. By physical impossibility we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was committed.[32] | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Even as appellant Ranin had difficulty bending his right forefinger, this did not foreclose the possibility that he used any of his right hand fingers to pull the trigger. In fact, the result of the Nerve Conduction Studies [19] administered on appellant Ranin unqualifiedly indicated normal sensory conduction of his right radial nerve. To merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Unable to show such evidence, herein appellant Ranin failed to overcome de Castro's testimony, which positively identified him as the shooter. [20] 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. [21] In the same vein, appellant Ranin's alibi that he had never been to UP fails in the face of positive identification by de Castro. | |||||
|
2007-09-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Regarding alibi, nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that it is the weakest of all defenses and must be received with much suspicion and with extreme caution, not only because of its intrinsic weakness and unreliability but also because of the facility available to the accused in fabricating and concocting such defense.[38] In order that alibi may be accorded credibility, the accused himself must positively demonstrate his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense as well as the physical impossibility for him to be at the locus criminis at that same time.[39] And by "physical impossibility" we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the locus criminis and the place where the accused says he was when the crime was committed.[40] | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellants insinuate that Adoracion was ill-motivated in accusing them of killing her husband and nephew. They claim that Adoracion simply wanted appellants thrown into jail to avenge the death of her husband. However, we find appellants' allegations unsubstantiated. The fact that Adoracion is related to the victims does not necessarily taint her testimony. Blood relationship between a witness and the victims does not, by itself, impair the witness' credibility.[23] As the widow and aunt of the victims Dominador and Mamerto, respectively, Adoracion is the most aggrieved party and her motive of putting the killers behind bars cannot be considered improper.[24] We have held that it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative who earnestly seeks justice to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. Moreover, since there is no competent evidence to prove that improper motive moved Adoracion to testify falsely, the sound conclusion is that no such motive existed[25] and her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[26] | |||||
|
2003-03-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As to the victim's earning capacity, the trial court found that his annual gross income at the time of his death was P76,800.00 computed at the rate of P1,600.00 a week for forty-eight (48) weeks. From this amount is deducted the necessary and incidental expenses, estimated at 50%, leaving a balance of P38,400.00.[19] His net annual income would then be multiplied by his life expectancy, using the following formula: 2/3 x 80-34 (age of the victim at time of death). Considering that he was 34 years old when he died, his life expectancy would be 31. Multiplying the net balance of his annual income by his life expectancy, the loss of his earning capacity is P1,190,400.00, thus:In computing the life expectancy of a person the following formula is used: | |||||
|
2003-03-14 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| This Court agrees with the trial court's observation that the version of the appellant is doubtful. First, the two disinterested eyewitnesses both testified that Rodolfo was not at the scene during the incident. This point in said testimonies was confirmed by Rodolfo himself, and was not challenged by the defense. Second, appellant's version evidently conflicts with the physical evidence showing that the victim suffered three injuries. Assuming that Rodolfo indeed hit the victim by mistake, the two other wounds remain unexplained. Third, appellant failed to present evidence on any ill-motive Rodolfo and Tomas Alferez would have against appellant. The fact that that there was no bad blood between the families of the brothers and appellant was even stipulated by the parties.[22] Fourth, and more importantly, appellant failed to present any independent evidence other than his own denial to bolster his claim. It is doctrinal that to merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.[23] If unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it is negative and self-serving, deserving no greater value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[24] In the case at bar, appellant miserably failed to overcome the eyewitnesses' testimonies, which positively identified him as the perpetrator of the crime. | |||||