This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-09-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Belgar's alibi was rightly rejected. Alibi, to prosper, must be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.[21] He must demonstrate not only that he was somewhere else when the crime occurred, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed.[22] But he failed to adequately support his alibi. Although he attested that on January 20, 2000, he slept in his house situated in Barangay San Miguel, Tigaon, Camarines Sur continuously from 8:00 p.m. until getting up at 5:00 a.m. of the next day,[23] he did not dispute that his house was but two kilometers away from where the rape was committed.[24] Both barangays were actually within the Municipality of Tigaon, rendering it not physically impossible for him to leave his house during the period that he allegedly was home in order to reach AAA's house by midnight to commit the crime. | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Having been positively and unmistakably identified by AAA as her rapist, Payot's weak defenses of denial and alibi cannot prosper. The settled jurisprudence is that categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, as in the case at bar, constitute self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[36] | |||||
|
2007-03-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Having been positively and unmistakably identified by AAA as her rapist, Senieres' weak defenses of denial and alibi cannot prosper. The settled jurisprudence is that categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, as in the cases at bar, constitute self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[51] | |||||
|
2006-09-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Having been positively and unmistakably identified by BBB and CCC as their rapist, appellant's unsubstantiated and uncorroborated defenses of denial and alibi cannot prosper. The settled jurisprudence is that categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, as in the cases at bar, constitute self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[60] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast to the simple but clear declarations of the private complainant, all that the appellant stresses in his defense is alibi. An alibi is inherently weak and easily fabricated. If not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, alibi constitutes self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[34] For alibi to prosper, the appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. [35] | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| When the issue is the credibility of witnesses, the function of evaluating it is primarily lodged in the investigating judge. The rule which concedes due respect, and even finality, to the assessment of credibility of witnesses by trial judges in civil and criminal cases where preponderance of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt, respectively, are required, applies a fortiori in administrative cases where the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence.[3] The investigating judge is in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, having personally heard them when they testified and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. The evaluation of the testimony of witnesses by the trial judge is accorded the highest respect on appeal because the court below had the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth. This assessment is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[4] We find no reason to depart from this rule. We find Judge Corales' assessment to be a meticulous and dispassionate analysis of the testimonies of the complainant, the respondent and their respective witnesses. | |||||
|
2003-08-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly held that the evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses by the trial court is accorded the highest respect on appeal because the court below had the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth. This assessment is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[12] | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to prosper, the following must be established: the presence of the appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the crime and the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. [12] As his residence is located in the same Purok 7, appellant's alibi fails. Weak as it is, alibi becomes all the more ineffectual when the accused fails to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. [13] | |||||