This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-02-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint[3] filed by complainant Carlito Ang against respondent. Ang alleged that on May 31, 1991, he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely Purificacion Diamante and William Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition[4] involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B which had an area of 6,258 square meters and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT ) No. (T-22409)-6433. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters designated as Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4, together with all the improvements thereon.[5] However, when he tried to secure a TCT in his name, he found out that said TCT No. (T-22409)-6433 had already been cancelled and in lieu thereof, new TCTs[6] had been issued in the names of William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero. | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is an established jurisprudential rule that a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him.[42] The defense of alibi is likewise unavailing. Firstly, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[43] Secondly, alibi is unacceptable when there is a positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.[44] Lastly, in order that alibi might prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused has been somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.[45] | |||||