Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LEONARDO FRANCISCO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 186470 2010-09-27	PEOPLE v. WILLIE MIDENILLA Y ALABOSO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the other hand, the defense simply invoked alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be proven by the accused that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission.[22] in People v. Francisco,[23] this Court held: xxx For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that (1) the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed, and (2) it was physically impossible for the accused to have been present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The Supreme Court has ruled where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold.
	GR No. 145509 2004-03-16	PEOPLE v. JAYMAR RUGAY Y TORRES QUISUMBING, J.
a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Truth is not established by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[36] In this case, Leonel and Said corroborated each other's testimonies. Both of them positively stated that appellant placed his arm around Jaime's neck while Jaymar was trying to take the victim's watch. When Jaime fought back, appellant stabbed him at the back and Jaymar
	GR No. 130587 2000-07-12	PEOPLE v. ROLDAN BOHOL Y GALICIA PARDO, J.
Despite a grueling cross-examination, witness Epitacia stood steadfast in declaring that it was accused-appellant who shot her sister. No reason was established for the witness to falsely impute the crime against accused-appellant. Moreover, the witness is a sister of the victim and with great motive to see to it that the real perpetrator of the crime be brought to justice. "When there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit."[22]
	GR No. 123102 2000-02-29	PEOPLE v. MADELO ESPINA Y CAÑASARES QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant's defense of denial is unavailing. For the defense of denial and alibi to prosper, it must be clearly established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that (1) the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed, and (2) it was physically impossible for the accused to have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[32] Appellant was right smack in the midst of the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. Hence, his defense of denial and alibi miserably failed to comply with the strict requirements of time and place.[33]
	GR No. 115687 2000-02-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO QUILLOSA Y FORMANES QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant's defense of alibi holds no water, for he himself admitted "that he had occasions to go to Valenzuela, Metro Manila from November 20, 1990 up to April 1993 whenever he has nothing to do in Baliuag."[24] It is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the offense was committed. It must likewise be shown by the defense that he was so far away so that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[25] For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met.[26] These appellant failed to do. We have held that where there is even the slightest chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold.[27] Further, alibi becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by close friends who may not be impartial witnesses.[28] Thus, in the light of the positive identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime, his defense of alibi and denial cannot be sustained.[29]
	GR No. 130666 2000-01-31	PEOPLE v. CASIMIRO JOSE Y GAYOL PARDO, J.
As heretofore stated, accused-appellant Casimiro Jose interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, "it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that (1) the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed, and (2) it was physically impossible for the accused to have been present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission."[23] The requirement of time and place must be strictly met.[24]