This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-01-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Although neither the fan knife nor the handgun were presented in court, the production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt for the same may not have been recovered at all from the assailant.[52] The presentation of the weapon used in the commission of the rape is not essential to the conviction of the accused for it suffices that the testimony of the rape victim is credible. The trial court did not err in finding that the testimony of the offended party is credible and therefore worthy of full faith and credit, sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused,[53] beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Finally, appellant relies on denial and alibi. Settled is the rule that such lines of defense in a criminal trial cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[26] Further, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. For it to prosper, proving that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed will not be enough; the physical impossibility for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time must likewise be demonstrated.[27] In the instant case, it was not impossible for appellant to have been at the locus criminis at the time the rape was committed. In fact, having taken his lunch there, he even admitted that he was in that place at the time.[28] He merely posits the defense that he did not stay long in that house, but went on to transport passengers in his tricycle.[29] However, this alibi was neither proven nor substantiated. His defense must perforce fail. | |||||
|
2002-02-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to be given weight, it must be shown that it was impossible for the accused to have been present at the place where the crime was perpetrated at the time of its commission.[38] In the instant case, it was not impossible for appellant to have been in Bolod that fateful noontime in April, as credibly testified to by complainant. He could have easily gone from Tagbilaran to Bolod, assaulted complainant, then gone back to Tagbilaran -- all within a short span of time. Hence, the RTC was correct in disregarding his alibi. | |||||