This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime at the time.[30] Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.[31] Clearly in this case, the physical impossibility of accused-appellant's presence at the scene of the crime on the date and time of its commission, has not been sufficiently established. | |||||
|
2008-10-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant relies on his alibi that he was in his boarding house located along USM Avenue, Kabacan, Cotabato the whole morning of September 15, 1995. For alibi to prosper, however, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.[18] Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.[19] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Interjected as a defense is alibi, appellant claiming that he went to Palao, Baddek, Bangued, Abra to visit his friends in the morning of April 22, 1988 and returned home only at around 5:30 p.m. For alibi to prosper, however, the hornbook rule requires a showing that the accused was at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[16] Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.[17] | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast to the overwhelming evidence against him, all appellant could offer were alibi and denial. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was likewise impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the alleged crime.[15] Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.[16] Appellant himself admitted that Barangay Masaya, Bai, Laguna where he was allegedly harvesting rice was only 45 minutes by jeepney from Barangay Arawan, San Antonio, Quezon where the crime was committed. His witnesses testified that they harvested palay with him during the day from March 30 to April 2, 1996. But they could not account for his whereabouts at past 11:00 p.m. on April 1, 1996 when the crime was committed. Appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. His alibi therefore deserves no consideration at all. | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The legal aphorism is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration and assessment of the testimonial evidence of the witnesses, and its conclusion based on its findings, are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect.[39] This is so because the trial judge, having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, is in a better position to determine their credibility.[40] An exception to this rule is when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[41] | |||||