Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NATHANIEL PONSARAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 188855 2010-12-08	PEOPLE v. RUEL TAMANO Y PASIA PEREZ, J.
In the same way, the lack of improper motive on the part of AAA even bolsters her credibility. Where there is no evidence to show any dubious or improper reason why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[56]
	GR No. 153248 2004-03-25	PEOPLE v. JESUS MORILES QUISUMBING, J.
Against the positive identification of the appellant by eyewitness Dadis, all that appellant could offer in his defense were denial and alibi. 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.[31] Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[32] In this case, the Gagante residence where appellant claimed to be at the time of the incident was located in the same barangay where the fatal stabbing took place. Weak as the appellant's alibi is, it became even weaker when he failed to demonstrate that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[33]
	GR Nos. 140514-15 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant's alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Bayanes concerning appellant's identification and presence at the crime scene. 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.[105] 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.[106] In these cases, the defense admitted that the distance between La Trinidad, Benguet and Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya is 79 kilometers, which can be negotiated in 4 or 5 hours.[107] Clearly, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the locus criminis at the time of the killing. Hence, the defense of alibi must fail.