This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In contrast, the evidence presented by the defense consisted mainly of bare denials and alibi. As the Court has oft pronounced, both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.[72] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not sufficient that appellant prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity when the crime was perpetrated.[73] Further, the defense of alibi may not prosper if it is established mainly by the accused themselves and their relatives like in this case and not by credible persons.[74] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We cannot agree. The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and observe the manner in which the crime is being committed.[12] Eduarte's assumption that it is harder to look at the features of a stranger's face when he is closer to you than when he is farther away may hold water only in normal situations. Under emotional stress, however, when the human body's adrenaline surges, it is highly inconceivable that the mind could not even manage to register the face of the person who threatened bodily harm. As a matter of fact, it is natural, if not instinctive, for the victims to look at the face of the felon. The production of sketches of criminals who were able to flee from authorities is borne out by this human experience. As aptly put by the RTC:Experience shows that because of the unusual act committed before their very eyes, witnesses specially the victims of the crime, can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals. Most often, the face and body movements of the criminal create an impression which cannot easily be erased from their memory. x x x.[13] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Understandably, appellant assails the reliability of the identification made by the prosecution for, after all, it is the only way by which his alibi could carry some weight. It is well-settled that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[8] In this case, both Genalyn and Gino have been able to identify appellant by the lightning flashes that illuminated their otherwise dark house and through his voice. It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated.[9] Even the split-second illumination by a flash of lightning could suffice to confirm identification of appellant. Identification of an accused by his voice has also been accepted particularly in cases where, such as in this case, the witnesses have known the malefactor personally for so long[10] and so intimately.[11] In People v. Calixtro,[12] the Court has given credence to the blindfolded rape victim's identification of the accused, a barriomate, by his voice. Still in an earlier case, the Court has said:"x x x [C]omplainant's identification of the appellant was not based solely on the latter's physical defect, but by his voice as well, when he warned complainant, `Flor, keep quiet.' Although complainant did not see appellant's face during the sexual act because the house was dark, nevertheless, no error could have been committed by the complainant in identifying the voice of the accused, inasmuch as complainant and appellant were neighbors."[13] The young victim, narrating her ordeal, declared before the trial court: | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| [28] People v. Tomas Coca, et al., G.R. No. 133739, 29 May 2002, citing People v. Clariño, 31 July 2002, citing People v. Hilot, 342 SCRA 128 [2000] . | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Felicidad categorically stated that accused Campos stabbed her and her sister. "The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and observe the manner in which the crime is being committed."[15] Even as she fell to the floor, Felicidad endeavored to see the identity of her assailant. She saw accused Campos as he stabbed her at close range and watched as he moved on to stab her sister. | |||||
|
2001-05-24 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the monetary awards, the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded to each of the heirs of the two victims, as well as the additional P50,000.00 as moral damages each, are proper. The civil indemnity is automatically granted to the offended party or his heirs in the case of death, without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime and the accused-appellants' culpability therefor.[27] On the actual damages of P150,000.00 awarded by the court a quo, the same lack evidentiary basis on the records.[28] No receipt or any document was presented in support thereof. Nonetheless, the amount of P15,000.00 as temperate damages would suffice in lieu of the unproven burial expenses.[29] In addition to such monetary awards, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages should have also been granted considering the presence of aggravating circumstances.[30] | |||||
|
2001-03-01 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants' appeal rests on the determination of the credibility of prosecution witness Milagros. It must be observed that where issues raised involve the credibility of witnesses, the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts, or circumstances of weight or substance, which could have affected the result of the case[8] which does not appear in this case. The contention of appellant that prosecution witness Milagros could not have heard such utterances is inadequate to overturn the established fact that Milagros witnessed the stabbing of her husband by accused-appellant Peralta upon the prodding of accused-appellant Quiambao. Considering the proximity of the location and that Milagros was only an arm's length away from her husband, the trial court cannot be faulted for giving credence to witness' testimony that she saw the crime that was then unfolding. Adding credence to her testimony is the fact that relatives of a victim of a crime have a natural knack for remembering the face of the assailant and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim by bringing the malefactor to the face of the law. Indeed, family members who have witnessed the killing of a loved one usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants.[9] As the trial court held:" xxx xxx xxx | |||||
|
2001-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The death indemnity of P30,000.00 was correctly increased by the appellate court to P50,000.00 in line with jurisprudence.[52] Moral damages are awarded in criminal cases involving injuries if supported by evidence on record,[53] but the stipulation of the parties in this case substitutes for the necessity of evidence in support thereof. Though not awarded below, the victim's heirs are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 which is considered reasonable considering the pain and anguish brought by his death.[54] | |||||