This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-10-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for appellant's alibi, for it to prosper, it is not enough to prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed. It must likewise be proven that he was somewhere else that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[6] As testified by his wife, Mary Jane, however, the bar was only 50 meters away from their house, hence, it was not impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Moreover, for their alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that they were somewhere else when the offense was committed, but also that they were so far away that they could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[73] Appellants Factao and Labroda utterly failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Factao and Labroda themselves testified that they were at the house of Labroda to celebrate the latter's birthday on 23 August 1991 at approximately the same time that Fernando Sardoma was killed.[74] Labroda's house was just more than a kilometer away from the place where the crime was committed, or approximately thirty (30) minutes on foot.[75] Evidently, the accused-appellants were in a place near the crime scene. | |||||