Private Complainant Case Study

3530 Words 15 Pages
Register to read the introduction… The clear and convincing testimony of the private complainant is credible enough to establish the commission of the crime.

II. The testimony of the private complainant as well as testimonies of other prosecution witness clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

III. The testimonial evidence of the private complainant as well as applicable laws and jurisprudence clearly established conspiracy among the accused-appellants.

IV. The testimony of the private complainant as well as the applicable laws and jurisprudence clearly established that the accused-appellant conspired with the other accused in the commission of the crime.

V. Positive identification by the private complainant as well as applicable jurisprudence clearly negates the accused-appellant’s defense of alibi even if corroborated by another witness.

VI. The court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of nighttime in the commission of the crime.

VII. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution as well as the clear and credible testimony of the private complainant satisfied the crucible test of reasonable doubt to overthrow the Constitutional guaranty of presumption of innocence and clearly established the accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable
…show more content…
In his testimony, he said that he slept early that night in his house somewhere in Cubao, Quezon City. He also presented his uncle, Dominodor Burao, as a witness to corroborate his alibi. But his allege uncle’s testimony is self serving then after the victim positively identified him as one of the robbers after all of them removed their mask. As it was declared in People v. Corpuz, if the alibi of the accused can only be confirmed by his relatives, his denial of culpability deserves scant consideration, especially, in the face of affirmative testimony of the victim as to his presence in the crime scene. Furthermore, in order for the court to appreciate the accused-appellants’ defense of alibi, it must be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. Sarmiento was only said he was at his house in Cubao which is only two (2) corners away from Lubayong Street, the area where the crime took place.

Moreover, it is a well settled rule that the defense of alibi is worthless in the face of positive identification of prosecution witnesses or the offended party. Ms. Rivera positively identified Mr. Sarmiento as the one holding the knife and as the one cheering Yhapp on while she was being ravished by the

Related Documents