This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2000-04-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's alibi that he was in his place of work from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. when the crime was committed cannot be given credence. How he could have exactly remembered, five years after the incident, that he was never absent from work for the whole month of June 1987, hardly inspires belief. For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission. Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the alibi seldom will hold water.[19] | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The testimony of Olivia about how she was raped was positive, categorical, straightforward and free of any serious flaw. No sufficient evidence was adduced to show that she had any ulterior motive to prevaricate and implicate accused-appellant in a fabricated charge. As it has been repeatedly said, no woman in her right mind, especially a very young provincial girl like complaining witness, will cry rape, allow examination of her private parts or subject herself and her family to humiliation unless the story is true and she is motivated solely by the desire to have her honor avenged and the culprit to meet his just punishment.[4] | |||||
|
2000-03-03 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused's defense of alibi, although corroborated by two witnesses, deserves little merit. The defense of alibi cannot overcome the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime by his victim.[24] Furthermore, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission.[25] Accused Arnel Omar failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. | |||||