This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A: None, sir.[26] In the absence of any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witness to impute so grave a wrong against the appellant, the defense of denial hardly deserves probative value.[27] Like alibi, a denial is inherently weak. It crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who positively testify that the accused was at the scene of the incident and was the victim's assailant.[28] Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, is a negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[29] | |||||