This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In clear contrast to the candid and unhesitating testimony of the victim, appellant's testimony shows marked inconsistencies and hesitance. When appellant was asked which part of the house he was sleeping in at the time of the incident, he first said in the sala.[34] When asked again, he said at the balcon.[35] We note further that while claiming innocence of the charge, appellant also asked for a lower sentence. This appears to us as an indirect admission of guilt.[36] A guiltless person would exert every effort to prove his innocence.[37] As the trial court observed:…If truly he is innocent of the crime, he should not ask for a lower sentence instead he should file a counter affidavit and present witnesses that may exculpate him from the crime charged. He was given a counsel to defend his case but nowhere in the record that he initiated a counter affidavit…[38] Coming now to the defense of alibi interposed by appellant. For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove: a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense; and b) the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.[39] We note that appellant did not deny that he was in the house of Tata Lope on the night of October 16, 1993, when the alleged offense took place. Worse, we further note that appellant did not show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the room where the victim was when she was ravished. We are thus constrained to conclude that appellant's alibi is but a mere concoction deserving no serious consideration. | |||||