This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-04-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The rejection was warranted. Long judicial experience instructs that their denial and alibis, being too easy to invent, could not overcome their positive identification by credible Prosecution witnesses whose motives for the identification were not shown to be ill or vile. Truly, a positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and devoid of any showing of ill or vile motive on the part of the Prosecution witnesses always prevails over alibi and denial that are in the nature of negative and self-serving evidence.[43] To be accepted, the denial and alibi must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence establishing not only that the accused did not take part in the commission of the imputed criminal act but also that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at or near the place of the commission of the act at or about the time of its commission. In addition, their proffered alibis were really unworthy of credit because only the accused themselves and their relatives and other intimates substantiated them.[44] | |||||
|
2009-04-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Q: How far was Leodegario Capispisan when Wilfredo Cawaling stood up and fired against Leodegario Capispisan? A: Witness pointing at the door, with a distance of six (6) meters.[13] We have had occasion to hold that delay in making a criminal accusation will not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[14] In this case, Rommel Brigido, on cross examination, explained, thus: Q: Why did it take you so long to execute this affidavit where the incident took place way back on April 19, 1987 and you only executed your affidavit in support of this information on July 27, 1995? A: Because that case was dismissed and [Wilfredo] Cawaling was at large at that time and I was asked to execute an affidavit. | |||||
|
2008-09-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Also untenable is accused-appellants' contention that Sergio's testimony is doubtful considering his delay in reporting the identity of the assailants. Delay in making a criminal accusation will not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[15] Sergio declared that at the time of the incident, he had passengers who did not want to be unloaded in that place, and afraid that he might also get involved in the matter, he simply overtook the victim's jeep when the traffic signal turned green. When the police came to the jeepney terminal to investigate two months after the incident, however, he readily came forward to help identify the culprits. In a police line-up, he positively identified Tanoan as the person who stabbed the victim, and Martin as the one who hindered Dolores from seeking help. In his testimony in court, Sergio affirmed his earlier charge against accused-appellants and candidly pointed to the latter as the culprits. | |||||