This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-10-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In his defense, accused-appellant raises the defense of alibi. This defense must fail in the light of the credible testimony of Roger Lara. Alibi is the weakest defense not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate. It is generally rejected when the accused is positively identified by a witness.[22] Accused-appellant states that he was elsewhere at the time the killings occurred, namely at his alleged work as a hauler at the Balintawak Market in Quezon City. However, he failed to produce any corroborating witness to his alleged presence there, or even failed to show that he was indeed employed as such. The RTC thus correctly disregarded the defense of alibi. It is well-settled that alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration but also does not, on its face, demonstrate the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[23] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Affirmed by the appellate court, the RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of PO1 Panis and the other police officers. Such finding of the trial court must be given great respect and shall generally not be disturbed by this Court. This principle was revisited in Sumbillo v. People of the Philippines,[9] where this Court reiterated that: The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. x x x The findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, which is not true in the present case. | |||||