Lawyerly

GR No. 181902

2011-08-31

PERALTA, J.

As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant that he was in Diit, Tacloban City at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[12] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[13] The appellant testified during trial that Diit is only a one-hour ride away from Tacloban City.[14] Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[15]

GR No. 178771

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO

PERALTA, J.

As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant Lando that he was in Tarlac at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for Lando to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. [28] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. [29] During the trial of the case, Lando testified that the distance between his house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac to the town of Rosales, Pangasinan is only around forty (40) kilometers. Such distance can be traversed in less than 30 minutes using a private car and when the travel is continuous. [30] Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant Lando to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical. [31]

GR No. 176354

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

However, this Court has time and again, held that to be believed, an alibi must be supported by the most convincing evidence, as it is an inherently weak argument that can be easily fabricated to suit the ends of those who seek its recourse.[22] Alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, otherwise it is fatal to the accused. Further, for alibi to prosper, appellants must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime or within its immediate vicinity.[23] In the present case, appellants' alibi was corroborated by their relatives and friends who may not have been impartial witnesses. They likewise failed to show that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

GR No. 182460

2010-03-09

PEOPLE v. JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA

PEREZ, J.

In order to justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal responsibility of the accused.[27]

GR No. 184792

2009-10-12

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELA CRUZ Y MIRANDA

VELASCO JR., J.

Didong's proffered defense to evade criminal responsibility is too feeble to merit consideration. His defense of alibi cannot overcome, and is in fact destroyed by the categorical testimony of Anthony, who positively pointed to and identified him as one of the malefactors. Moreover, in order to justify an acquittal based on alibi, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[25] And when the law speaks of physical impossibility, the reference is to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the locus criminis, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[26] Where the possibility exists for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[27] Evidently, here, the requisites for appreciating alibi are not present. In fact, by appellant's own admission, he was with one of his co-accused the day before Ahlladin's death was uncovered. Even supposing that during the latter part of the day, he really did go home, such a detail does not remove the possibility of his being at the forested area, the scene of the crime.

GR No. 170222

2009-06-18

EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[17] Where there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[18]

GR No. 176531

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. ROMEO BANDIN

CORONA, J.

Consequently, appellant's defense of denial and alibi must crumble in the face of AAA's positive and clear identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. Denial and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[14]

GR No. 181901

2008-11-28

PEOPLE v. EMILIO MANCHU

NACHURA, J.

Besides, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[20] Apart from testifying that he was fishing at Barobungdo from 5 o'clock in the afternoon until 4 o'clock in the morning the following day, appellant was unable to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

GR No. 173308

2008-06-25

PEOPLE v. ELMER DE LA CRUZ

CORONA, J.

Consequently, Martinez's defense of denial and alibi (that he was supposedly with his brother in Barangay Paltik, Dingalan, Aurora Province on November 4, 5, 8 and 9, 1998, managing his fishing boat) must crumble in the face of Aaron's positive and clear identification of him as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Denial and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[10]

GR No. 177299

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. CHARLITO TUMULAK

NACHURA, J.

Besides, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[14] Apart from testifying that he never went to his father's house in the afternoon of February 10, 1998, appellant was unable to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

	GR No. 181902 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO PERALTA, J.
As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant that he was in Diit, Tacloban City at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[12] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[13] The appellant testified during trial that Diit is only a one-hour ride away from Tacloban City.[14] Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[15]
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant Lando that he was in Tarlac at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for Lando to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. [28] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. [29] During the trial of the case, Lando testified that the distance between his house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac to the town of Rosales, Pangasinan is only around forty (40) kilometers. Such distance can be traversed in less than 30 minutes using a private car and when the travel is continuous. [30] Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant Lando to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical. [31]
	GR No. 176354 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, this Court has time and again, held that to be believed, an alibi must be supported by the most convincing evidence, as it is an inherently weak argument that can be easily fabricated to suit the ends of those who seek its recourse.[22] Alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, otherwise it is fatal to the accused. Further, for alibi to prosper, appellants must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime or within its immediate vicinity.[23] In the present case, appellants' alibi was corroborated by their relatives and friends who may not have been impartial witnesses. They likewise failed to show that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
	GR No. 182460 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA PEREZ, J.
In order to justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal responsibility of the accused.[27]
	GR No. 184792 2009-10-12	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELA CRUZ Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
Didong's proffered defense to evade criminal responsibility is too feeble to merit consideration. His defense of alibi cannot overcome, and is in fact destroyed by the categorical testimony of Anthony, who positively pointed to and identified him as one of the malefactors. Moreover, in order to justify an acquittal based on alibi, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[25] And when the law speaks of physical impossibility, the reference is to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the locus criminis, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[26] Where the possibility exists for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[27] Evidently, here, the requisites for appreciating alibi are not present. In fact, by appellant's own admission, he was with one of his co-accused the day before Ahlladin's death was uncovered. Even supposing that during the latter part of the day, he really did go home, such a detail does not remove the possibility of his being at the forested area, the scene of the crime.
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[17] Where there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[18]
	GR No. 176531 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROMEO BANDIN CORONA, J.
Consequently, appellant's defense of denial and alibi must crumble in the face of AAA's positive and clear identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. Denial and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[14]
	GR No. 181901 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. EMILIO MANCHU NACHURA, J.
Besides, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[20] Apart from testifying that he was fishing at Barobungdo from 5 o'clock in the afternoon until 4 o'clock in the morning the following day, appellant was unable to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.
	GR No. 173308 2008-06-25	PEOPLE v. ELMER DE LA CRUZ CORONA, J.
Consequently, Martinez's defense of denial and alibi (that he was supposedly with his brother in Barangay Paltik, Dingalan, Aurora Province on November 4, 5, 8 and 9, 1998, managing his fishing boat) must crumble in the face of Aaron's positive and clear identification of him as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Denial and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[10]
	GR No. 177299 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. CHARLITO TUMULAK NACHURA, J.
Besides, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[14] Apart from testifying that he never went to his father's house in the afternoon of February 10, 1998, appellant was unable to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM