This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-02-05 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant seeks refuge in the defense of alibi which we have consistently regarded as "the much abused sanctuary of felons and which is considered as an argument with a bad reputation . . . It is, to say the least, the weakest defense which must be taken with caution being easily fabricated."[14] Such defense cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[15] In this case, two prosecution witnesses, Marissa dela Cruz and Reggie Malubay, positively identified appellant as the culprit. Furthermore, the defense failed to establish that it was physically impossible for the appellant to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. For its part, the prosecution has proved that the place where the crime took place was only 100 to 150 meters, more or less, away from the house where appellant and his companions had a drinking spree. Clearly, it was possible for him to be at such place when the crime was committed. It is well settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime.[16] | |||||