This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-01-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For alibi to prosper, it would not be enough for the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed. He must further demonstrate that it would have been physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[12] It is essential that credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime be presented to establish an acceptable alibi.[13] Petitioner failed to meet this test. While petitioner could have been working as intelligence agent in San Pedro, Laguna from October 19 21, 1990, contrary to his claim, it was not physically impossible for him to have been in Pasig City, Metro Manila on the day of the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2001-01-17 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Appellant's submissions fail to persuade. The trial court, which had the opportunity of observing the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, was convinced of the truthfulness of prosecution witness Primito Sumadia's testimony and not that of the defense witnesses. We find no reason to reverse or alter the evaluation of the trial court, reiterating the time tested doctrine "that a trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight - even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence."[5] | |||||