This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-10-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contentions deserve scant consideration. A close scrutiny of Galfo's sworn statement reveals that although appellant's name was not specifically mentioned, he was however referred to as the "companion" or "kas-a"of Salcedo.[38] Besides, the failure to specifically mention his name does not foreclose the fact that he was the assailant. It must be recalled that during his testimony in court, Galfo positively and categorically identified appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. As such, any alleged inconsistency in the sworn statement of Galfo vis-a-vis his testimony in open court is more apparent that real. In Mercado v. People,[39] we declared that - | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the face of the credible and reliable positive identification made by Dirige and David, appellant's defense of alibi is absolutely unavailing. The defense of alibi, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over the clear and positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[42] | |||||