This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-03-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The appellant insinuates that the rape charge against him is false simply because AAA's father failed to testify in support of his daughter's claim. We do not find this argument meritorious. As the CA correctly ruled, the matter of deciding whom to present as witness for the prosecution is not for the accused or for the trial court to decide, but is a prerogative given to the prosecutor.[28] What is significant is the existence of a credible testimony - the testimony of AAA - sufficient to convict the appellant. Courts are not precluded from rendering judgment based on the testimony of even a single witness. | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the non-presentation of other witnesses to corroborate the testimony of PO1 Molato is of no consequence. The matter of deciding whom to present as witness for the prosecution is not for the accused or for the trial court to decide, as it is the prerogative of the prosecutor. More importantly, the testimony of PO1 Molato is sufficient to convict accused-appellant. Courts are not precluded from rendering judgment based on the testimony even of a single witness. The weight and sufficiency of evidence is determined not by the number of the witnesses presented but by the credibility, nature, and quality of the testimony.[12] | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The denial and alibi put up by petitioner cannot prosper. Such defenses are inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of petitioner.[23] Moreover, San Jose, Antique where petitioner claimed to be staying at the approximate time of the commission of the offense is only a thirty-minute drive by a public utility vehicle from Patnongon, Antique. Thus, failing to meet the test that there must be clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime, his defense of alibi cannot prosper.[24] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| intimidation of persons nor force upon things; and, (3) there must be an intention to gain from the taking of another person's personal property.[21] The non-presentation of Jasmin Jamin is of no consequence. The matter of deciding whom to present as witness for the prosecution is the exclusive prerogative of the prosecutor.[22] More importantly, the testimonies of Blanquisco and Raymundo are | |||||
|
2002-08-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| witness on the stand. Unless there are substantial matters that might have been overlooked or discarded, the findings of credibility by the trial court will not generally be disturbed on appeal.[11] In the case at bar, a careful and thorough review of the records reveals that the trial court was correct in convicting accused-appellant on the basis of the testimony of Franco Cuyos, who was not shown to have been impelled by ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant.[12] Not only was his testimony convincing and unequivocal, the same was also backed up by physical evidence, a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth[13] that the victim was indeed shot on the chest and at close range. Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi were correctly disregarded by the trial court. Time and again, we have said that denial and alibi are the weakest defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification.[14] For alibi to prosper as a | |||||