This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The defense of alibi assumes importance where the evidence for the prosecution is weak and there is no positive identification of the accused,[39] as in this case. The rule that the accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases. Otherwise, we will have the absurdity of the accused being put to a greater burden if the prosecution's evidence is weak than if it were strong.[40] | |||||