This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-12-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was likewise impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.[34] In the case at bar, accused-appellant failed to prove and demonstrate the physical impossibility of his being at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. No less than accused-appellant himself admitted that his workplace was 250 meters away from the house of the victim.[35] Even his assertion that it took an hour to get to the victim's house because of the muddy condition of the road[36] can not discount the possibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. As an element of a credible alibi, "physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was and when the crime transpired and the place it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[37] Accused-appellant's allegation that the road was muddy cannot be given credence, inasmuch as he himself admitted that it did not rain during the month of October 1997 because it was the height of the El Niño phenomenon.[38] In this connection, it must once again be stressed that - | |||||