Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CARLIE ALAGON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 173360 2008-03-28	LT. COL. PACIFICO G. ALEJO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A: When the lumber was already loaded, they asked permission from me that they are going to bring the logs to the house of Col. Alejo, sir.[26] Against these damning pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution, all that petitioner could interpose as defense are mere denials and finger-pointing. He claimed that it was General Soriano who was behind the plot to indict him of the crime. Sadly, petitioner did not substantiate such defense and he merely said that it was based on his gut feeling. Under settled jurisprudence, denial could not prevail over the positive testimony of witnesses.[27] Denial is intrinsically a weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[28]
	GR Nos. 140514-15 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO QUISUMBING, J.
Her testimony was buttressed by that of witness Marlon Manis. A former neighbor of appellant, he had known appellant since 1993. He was a frequent customer at appellant's bakery. In the rural areas, people tend to be more familiar with their neighbors. This familiarity may extend to body movements, which cannot easily be effaced from memory. Hence, Manis' testimony that he could recognize appellant even just from his build and manner of walking is not improbable. His declaration that he was some twenty-five (25) meters away from the person walking away from the victim does not make recognition far-fetched. Once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification is an easy task, even from that distance.[80]
	GR No. 119832 2000-10-12	RAYMUNDO TAN v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In the face of the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses of petitioners as the authors of the crime, petitioners' defense of mere denial becomes worthless. Denial is intrinsically a weak defense, which cannot prevail over positive testimony of witnesses.[15] We therefore find that petitioners' argument in support of their third assignment of error must fail. Contrary to petitioners' contention, their conviction was not based only on the weakness of their defense, but more on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution. We find the testimonial and medical evidence against petitioners candid and convincing. Competent and credible eyewitnesses, who had no reason to testify falsely against petitioners, positively identified the latter as the principals in the killing of Rudolfo Quinanola. They gave a full account of the commission thereof in great detail, which the petitioners could not belie. In sum, the prosecution has discharged its duty of proving petitioners' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, hence their conviction is in order.
	GR No. 122099 2000-07-05	PEOPLE v. AGAPITO LISTERIO Y PRADO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is well settled that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, such that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused.[40] More explicitly, the well entrenched rule is that "the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner. It has been held that witnesses are to be weighed not numbered; hence, it is not at all uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a single witness."[41]
	GR No. 130490 2000-06-20	PEOPLE v. VENANCIO FRANCISCO Y BERNALDO KAPUNAN, J.
Upon the other hand, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the general rule that "factual findings of the trial court deserve respect and are not disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, and would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case."[24]
	GR No. 120170 2000-05-30	PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO DIMAILIG y CARAIG PARDO, J.
However, Josephine Sevillana positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant. The testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction if positive and credible as in this case.[28]