This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-09-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Worth stressing, this Court has consistently ruled that the defense of alibi must be received with suspicion and caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be easily fabricated.[20] Alibi is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification of the accused. An alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the petitioners by credible witnesses who have no motive to testify falsely.[21] | |||||
|
2004-02-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, Roselyn testified that she was familiar with the voice of the appellant as he was a friend of his stepfather and she visited appellant's house several times.[15] The voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years. Once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance.[16] We also note that appellant did not deny that Warlito Huesca was his good friend and that he visited their house many times.[17] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We cannot sustain appellant's defenses of denial and alibi. Denial is intrinsically a weak defense. It must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to be credible. Correspondingly, courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily.[10] | |||||