This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-07-09 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is true that alibi is not always false and without merit. It may serve as basis for an acquittal if it can really be shown by clear and convincing evidence that it was indeed physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene at the time.[31] In this regard, appellant failed to prove convincingly that he was not at the crime scene at the time the four rapes occurred because he merely denied that AAA was with him on the alleged dates. Moreover, the distance of appellant's house, where AAA was alleged to be during the four rapes, from the crime scene does not evince belief that it was impossible for him to be there when the rapes were committed. Further, jurisprudence has shown that alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is invoked and sought to be crafted mainly by the accused himself and his immediate relative or relatives.[32] Appellant's alibi is patently self-serving even though his brothers tried to corroborate it. | |||||
|
2003-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, firmly established is the rule that alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted.[22] Such defense warrants the least credibility or none at all[23] and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness.[24] Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[25] | |||||