This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-01-24 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Since alibi can easily be fabricated or concocted, such allegation is always regarded with suspicion. For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense, and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.[52] "Physical impossibility" means that the accused "was at such other place [for] such a length of time that it was impossible for him to have been at the [crime scene], either before or after the time he was at such other place."[53] The trial court subsequently found that the appellant failed to prove this physical impossibility because the appellant's house where AAA resided could easily be reached within 30 minutes using a motorized banca from the fishpond of Gaudencio Jeves where he worked. Moreover, the positive identification of the appellant as the rapist prevails over the defense of alibi.[54] | |||||