This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-03-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Against the prosecution's evidence, the appellant presents the defense of denial and alibi. Denial is intrinsically a weak defense and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to be credible. Courts likewise view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily.[24] For alibi to prevail, it must also be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the appellant to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the appellant was somewhere else.[25] | |||||