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] | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| To properly appreciate the defense of alibi, the requirements of place and time must be strictly met.[41] The accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[42] Here, we find no physical impossibility for the appellant to have been at the place of the commission of the crime and to have actually participated in it. | |||||
|
2002-12-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Malabon buying fish. It is well-settled jurisprudence that alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because of its susceptibility to fabrication without much opportunity to check or rebut it. For this defense to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that he could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime or even its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[25] The requisites of time and place must be strictly met.[26] In the case at bar, the defense of alibi was not clearly and convincingly established. The appellant failed to demonstrate that his presence at the place of the crime at the time it happened was physically impossible. Malabon, where the appellant claimed he was at that time, | |||||