This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-08-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's contention that the criminal complaint filed against him was caused by ill motive on the part of AAA and XYZ deserves scant consideration. We cannot accept the claim that it was an offshoot of AAA's jealousy and of XYZ's grudge against him for living in with her mother and for forbidding her to go out with her male friends. It is a negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declarations of a prosecution witness and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves more credence.[19] | |||||
|
2010-04-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In contrast, appellant could only offer denial and alibi in his defense. Denial and alibi are weak defenses which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. These are negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declarations of a prosecution witness and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves more credence. [20] Thus, between the positive identification made by BBB and the bare denial and alibi of appellant, there is scarcely any doubt that decisive weight must be given to the positive testimony of BBB. | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In contrast, appellants could only offer denial and alibi in their defense. Denial and alibi are weak defenses which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. These are negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declarations of a prosecution witness and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves more credence.[38] In addition to AAA's positive declarations, appellants' alibi[39] placed them within the periphery of the locus criminis. In order for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellants were somewhere else when the offense was committed; it must, likewise, be demonstrated that they were so far away that it was not possible for them to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[40] | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| That Crisanto employed force and intimidation was also proven by Janice's testimony. It is clear from her narration that Crisanto used the knife to intimidate and cow her into submitting to his evil designs. The threat or intimidation produced in the mind of Janice such fear that if she resisted or did not yield to the desire of Crisanto, the threat would be carried out.[23] | |||||
|
2003-02-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The award of moral damages is in accord with jurisprudence. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are awarded in rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of the rape itself, because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[13] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in rape cases, this Court is guided by three principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[16] | |||||