This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-06-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| For alibi to succeed as a defense, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence, first, his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense, and second, the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. [30] The concept of physical impossibility refers not only to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, but also to the facility of access between the two places. [31] The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. [32] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. [33] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Secondly, the CA and the RTC rejected the alibi of Tuy. We agree with their rejection. To begin with, his absence from the scene of the murder was not firmly established considering that he admitted that he could navigate the distance between Brgy. Olango (where he was supposed to be) and Brgy. Bani (where the crime was committed) in an hour by paddle boat and in less than that time by motorized banca. Also, eyewitness Severino positively identified him as having hacked his father.[6] The failure of Tuy to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene negated his alibi.[7] | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| "Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But, to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water. [130] [emphasis supplied.] | |||||
|
2010-09-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses.[181] To be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[182] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A: A little.[15] (Emphasis supplied.) All that Mahinay was able to offer against the positive identification and imputation by the prosecution was his alibi of being in his aunt's house at the time of the incident. In itself, the defense of alibi is already considered inherently weak since it is very easy to concoct.[16] Mahinay's alibi is, however, rendered even weaker by the fact that the only witness to his allegedly being in his aunt's house at the time of the rape, was himself. None of the occupants of the house, not even Mahinay's aunt, Remedios Lauron, was presented to testify that Mahinay was, indeed, there at the time of the alleged rape. Alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses; and where the defense of alibi is not corroborated, it is fatal to the accused.[17] | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Besides, the above testimonies do not even show that it was physically impossible for the accused-appellants to have been at the scene of the crime at the time when it occurred. As held by the trial court, accused-appellants Osianas and Cumawas declared they were in a place situated within the barangay where the incident took place. Accused-appellant Osianas claims to have been asleep, while accused-appellant Cumawas claims to have been threshing palay with the other accused-appellants at the time of the incident. To be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[23] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant fled from the scene of the crime after the stabbing incident. The trial judge had issued a warrant for his arrest on February 17, 1999 but the authorities arrested him only on June 9, 2000. The flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind.[12] Indeed, the wicked man flees though no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.[13] | |||||
|
2003-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellants fled from the scene of the crime after the shooting incident. Juancho Osorio was arrested on January 8, 1999 at Tambak, Taguig, Metro Manila while Mateo Gregorio was arrested on May 1, 1998 in Sucat, Parañaque City. It has been settled that flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind.[16] Indeed, the wicked man flees though no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.[17] | |||||