This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly overruled the appellant's defense of alibi. Alibi is a weak, if not the weakest of defenses in a criminal prosecution, because it is easy to concoct but hard to disprove. To serve as basis for acquittal, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence. For it to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was absent from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been present then.[35] In this case, the appellant avers that at the time of the stabbing incident, he was resting in the house of his cousin at 606 Nueve de Pebrero Street as he was suffering from stomach pain due to his ulcer.[36] But the appellant failed to adduce any medical certificate that he was suffering from the ailment. Moreover, Elisa positively identified the appellant as one of the men who repeatedly stabbed the victim. The appellant's defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward identification of the appellant as one of the victim's assailants. The appellant himself admitted that his cousin's house, the place where he was allegedly resting when the victim was stabbed, was merely ten to fifteen meters away from the scene of the stabbing. Indeed, the appellant's defense of denial and alibi, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive testimony of prosecution eyewitness Elisa Rolan.[37] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons or with force upon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide in its generic sense was committed. The offense becomes a special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.[4] | |||||
|
2003-02-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Besides, accused-appellant could only offer the defenses of denial and alibi. Denial is intrinsically a weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of accused-appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and evidentiary weight.[25] Moreover, in the absence of proof that the prosecution witnesses are moved by improper motive, it is presumed that they were not so moved and, therefore, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[26] That presumption has not been overcome in this case. Rufina and Christopher were related to the victim. Considering their close relationship, their natural instinct would be to help bring the real culprit to justice. To blame an innocent man for the killing of the victim would serve them no purpose.[27] Accordingly, the identification of accused-appellant as one of the killers of Basilio must, perforce, prevail over the bare denial of accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| fellow, who went on top of or astride Ben Hernandez.[40] Even if said witness was frightened at that precise moment, it is not sufficient reason to prevent her from later recalling identified body marks of appellants. It is the most natural reaction of victims of criminal violence to strive to ascertain the appearance of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victims' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[41] Lastly, appellants did not show that Marivic Rodelas was impelled by any malice or evil motive to implicate them in the commission of the heinous crime. In the absence of proof that said witness is moved by improper motive, it is presumed that she was not so moved and, therefore, her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[42] We now come to the culpability of appellants Sabiyon and Murphy for the death of Ben Hernandez by reason and as a consequence of the robbery committed by them. While admittedly there is no direct evidence presented by the prosecution on the killing of the victim by | |||||