This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The defense of alibi, as a rule, is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be easily fabricated. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible eyewitness who has no ill motive to testify falsely. For such defense to prosper, it must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the physical impossiblity of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[33] Evidence tending to prove that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene or vicinity of the crime is indispensible.[34] | |||||