This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-07-24 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| On the other hand, petitioner offers alibi and denial as his defense. It is a settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was at some other place when the crime was committed; but the defense must likewise demonstrate that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission.[23] In considering the physical distance of the accused from the crime scene, the Court has rejected alibi where the two places are in the same municipality,[24] where they are easily accessible by any mode of public transportation,[25] where the distance can be covered by walking for thirty minutes or by riding a vehicle for twenty minutes,[26] or even when it could be reached after approximately an hour.[27] | |||||
|
2001-08-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 5818, the court found accused-appellant Raul Pablo y Lazaro guilty of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition punished under P. D. No. 1866 and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the costs. His separate indictment was on account of an unlicensed firearm used in the killing. "Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Although the crime in this case was committed in 1990, the amendatory law (R. A. No. 8294) which became effective on July 6, 1997, may be given retroactive effect since it is favorable to accused-appellant. Therefore, the illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm may no longer be separately charged against accused Raul Pablo and only one offense shall be punished, that is, murder, and the use of an unlicensed firearm shall only be considered as an aggravating circumstance.[38] | |||||