This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-08-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The rule is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirement of time and place must be strictly met.[27] It is, therefore, incumbent upon appellant to prove with clear and convincing evidence that at the time of the commission of the offense charged, he was in a place other than the situs criminis or immediate vicinity thereof, such that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crime charged.[28] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We are not moved by appellants' uncorroborated defense of alibi. For the defense to prosper, the requirements of time and place (or distance) must be strictly met; it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime during its commission.[21] Appellant Igdoy himself testified that the distance between his residence at Hibucawon, Jaro, Leyte and Kananga, Leyte, the scene of the crime, can be negotiated by public transport within two and a half hours.[22] Appellant Albarido admitted that he was at his house during the commission of the crime, which is only more than three (3) kilometers away from Sto. Domingo, Kananga, Leyte where it happened.[23] These distances, as this Court has ruled in previous cases,[24] are not enough to prove that appellant could not have been at the crime scene when it was committed. Parenthetically, appellants' alibis are worthless in the face of their positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.[25] | |||||