This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-12-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The rule is well-settled that evidence to be believed must not only come from a credible source but must also be credible in itself such as one that the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.[33] The immediately foregoing version of the defense falls short of such standard. It is difficult to believe that an 18 year-old barrio lass would initiate and consent to having an amorous affair with the common-law spouse of her own mother, under the same roof where she and her younger siblings are staying. | |||||
|
2002-08-07 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[85] A denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot prevail over a positive declaration.[86] Here, accused-appellant was unable to overcome the strong evidence presented by the prosecution. Nevertheless, accused-appellant was correct in saying that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of death. | |||||