This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to prosper, the petitioners must not only prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the offense but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[48] Emilio himself admitted that he was just one kilometer away from the crime scene when the incident happened during the unholy hour of 1:00 a.m. of July 15, 2001. As such, Emilio failed to prove physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene on the date and time in question. Just like denial, alibi is an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses of the petitioners as the perpetrators of the crime.[49] In the present case, Emilio was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as one of the assailants. Moreover, alibi becomes less credible if offered by the accused himself and his immediate relatives as they are expected to make declarations in his favor,[50] as in this case, where Emilio, his father and brother insisted that the former was somewhere else when the incident occurred. For these reasons, Emilio's defense of alibi will not hold. | |||||
|
2014-07-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Escamilla v. People,[97] we said that "[t]he evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of, inter alia, the means used; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; and the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim."[98] | |||||