This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-04-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Apprehended next was Wilson who pleaded not guilty during his arraignment.[5] On January 30, 1996, the RTC rendered its Decision[6] likewise finding him guilty of murder.[7] Wilson appealed his conviction. On March 31, 2000, this Court, in G.R. No. 125280 rendered its Decision,[8] disposing thus: | |||||
|
2003-06-09 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The defense of alibi is unavailing to disprove the occurrence of the crime. For this asseveration to prosper, it is not enough to establish that the person charged has been at some other place during the commission of the crime but that it would have also been impossible for him to at all be at the locus criminis at the time.[8] It remains undisputed that appellant and Soledad have then been both staying at the Sanitary Camp. Alibi, verily a weak defense, would almost invariably be likewise ignored in the face of a positive identification made by an eyewitness. | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[39] Appellant's own evidence shows that he was in the immediate environs when the fatal stabbing occurred. In fact, his house was just a few hundred meters away from the crime scene. Positive identification, where categorical and consistent, and absent proof of any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial and alibi, which are not substantiated by clear and convincing proof.[40] Hence, this appeal must fail. But was the crime committed murder or homicide? | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| This Court has ruled consistently that alibi is an inherently weak defense[28] and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[29] Moreover, for alibi to overcome the prosecution's evidence, the defense must successfully prove the element of physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene at the time of the perpetration of the offense.[30] Physical impossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was, but more importantly, the accessibility between these points.[31] In this case, the element of physical impossibility of appellant's presence that fateful night at the crime scene has not been established. | |||||