This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In light of the weakness in the prosecution's case, the alibi of De Guzman assumes credence and importance. While alibi is a weak defense and the rule is that it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court, the said rule has never been intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases. Otherwise, an absurd situation will arise wherein the accused is put in a more difficult position where the prosecution evidence is vague and weak as in the present case.[30] The burden of proof still lies in the prosecution to establish that De Guzman was responsible for the killing. | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Alibi is an inherently weak defense and it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court.[16] For alibi to be considered, the defense must show: (a) that the accused was not at the scene of the crime; and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to have been there when the crime was committed.[17] We agree with the trial court when it observed, | |||||
|
2001-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There no longer existed a real danger to the life or personal safety of accused-appellant Rabanal inasmuch as a significant length of time has passed between the perceived danger to his life or personal safety and the shooting of Atendido. At the time of the shooting, Rabanal was no longer confronted with any unlawful aggression on the part of Atendido. When Rabanal shot Atendido, the unlawful aggression of the latter has long ceased as in fact he was already lying down preparing to sleep. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is a condition sine qua non for the successful invocation of self-defense.[6] It is a doctrinal rule that when an unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists, the one making a defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor.[7] | |||||