Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO GANI Y TUPAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 203087 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ZABALA y BALADA PERALTA, J.
Lastly, the interest rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this ruling until fully paid.[60]
	GR No. 214506 2015-10-19	PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA Y SOLON PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Moreover, considering its doubtful nature, clear and convincing evidence must be submitted to support the alibi of an accused, otherwise, it is considered negative, self-serving, and undeserving of weight in law.[42] Thus, alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, especially in cases where the testimonies of the witnesses are categorical, consistent and untainted by ill-will.[43]
	GR No. 208716 2014-09-24	PEOPLE v. ELADIO B. LUMAHO PEREZ, J.
The liberality of the trial court is not equated to diminished credibility. In straightforward, positive narration, she was able to convey, despite her tender age, the essential details to convict the accused. Jurisprudentially settled is the principle that if a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[22] Putting more emphasis, the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[23]
	GR No. 208173 2014-06-11	PEOPLE v. OLIVER A. BUCLAO LEONEN, J.
We recently held that "[i]t is doctrinally settled that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal."[56]
	GR No. 202976 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. MERVIN GAHI LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We are similarly unconvinced with appellant's defense of alibi. We have consistently held that alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable.[26] Moreover, we have required that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[27]