This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses; unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim.[41] In the case of an alibi, the requirements of time and place should be strictly complied with by the defense, meaning that the accused must not only show that he was somewhere else but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[42] | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We have pronounced time and again that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[29] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.[30] In the case at bar, accused-appellant and his brother, second defense witness Jose, claim that the former was taking care of his daughter in his house at around 7:00 p.m. of September 7, 2003. He then went out and proceeded to a videoke bar, which was merely 20 meters away from his house. Accused-appellant and his brother admitted that their house was merely 50 meters away, or around a one-minute walk, from the house of AAA, where the alleged incident occurred. Accused-appellant was therefore clearly in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime, and thus accused-appellant's defense of alibi must fail. | |||||