This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-05-20 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The defense of alibi might prosper if it is at least shown (1) that the accused is in another place at the time of the commission of the offense, and (2) that it would have been physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene[3] or within its immediate vicinity.[4] Alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration, but it also does not on its face demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the place and time of the commission of the offense.[5] Appellant himself has admitted that while his class would end at one o'clock in the afternoon, he occasionally would still go back to school late in the afternoon to oversee the school's poultry project. | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| reiterated, the matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the accused's behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial. Consequently, conclusions of trial courts command great weight and respect.[14] Lastly, accused-appellant argues that the attack was not attended by treachery since Joemari was not taken by surprise in view of the prior heated argument between them which should have placed Joemari on guard. We are not persuaded. The essence of treachery is that the | |||||
|
2001-03-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "That Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan and Sto. Niño, Calumpit, Bulacan are only four (4) or five (5) kilometers apart. It would only take five to ten minutes to travel using a private vehicle from his residence in Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan to Sto. Niño, Calumpit, Bulacan and about one (1) hour by public transport. As it is, therefore there was no physical impossibility for accused to be at the scene of the crime in the date and time in question even if he was then residing at Iba, Hagonoy or even if he was then performing his duties as lay minister and lector at the San Antonio de Padua Parish Church. Also belying the alibi of the accused is the testimony of his own witness, Rev. Fr. Ireneo T. Cabasal, who declared that his Church has only one mass during Sundays and this is celebrated at 8:00 o'clock in the morning. Thus, there was no occasion for accused to perform his duties as lay minister and lector at said Parish Church in the afternoon of October 15, 1995 which was a Sunday."[26] Appellant failed to satisfy the elementary requirements of alibi, that is, accused must be able to (a) prove his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) demonstrate that it is physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[27] Here, it was highly possible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. | |||||