This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant Garcia's alibi has no leg to stand on. In People v. Desalisa,[19] this Court ruled that: ...for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Appellants' alibi is not worth a damaged nickel. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was some place else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence.[28] In the instant case, the crime was committed at barangay Bulod, Barugo, Leyte near appellant Federico's house. All three appellants were within the immediate vicinity of the place of the crime. They testified that they were at their respective residences at the time the crime was committed. Appellant Federico was allegedly sleeping inside his house, and so was appellant Marcos, whose house is located at the same barangay Bulod. Appellant Oscar, resides at the neighboring barangay Cabarasan, Barugo, Leyte, which according to him, is only one hour of walking from the residence of appellant Federico. In fact, appellant Oscar was present at appellant Federico's house on the same morning the lifeless body of Platon was discovered. Thus, appellants failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be at the place of the crime. Their alibi must fail. | |||||