This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Then, as for alibi, such a defense would prosper only if the accused was able to prove that not only was he at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission.[38] Using such standards, Dinamling's alibi holds no water. Not only was his alleged location at the time of commission, that is, the XXX Police Station where he was on duty, in the same municipality as the crimes' place of commission, Dinamling himself also admited that this police station is just “two to three minutes” away from AAA's boarding house. Where the accused admits that he was in the same municipality as the place where the offense occurred, it cannot be said that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crime, and his defense of alibi cannot prosper.[39] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (9) The failure of Alumbres to notice when Arce arrived at the scene of the crime is quite understandable, considering the events that were already transpiring. We have held that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declarations, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies; slight contradictions in fact serve to strengthen the sincerity of a witness and prove that his testimony is not rehearsed.[52] It is settled that so long as the witnesses' testimonies concur on substantial matters, the inconsistencies and contradictions do not affect the witnesses' credibility or the verity of their testimonies.[53] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2001-09-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| So long as the witnesses' testimonies agree on substantial matters, the inconsequential inconsistencies and contradictions dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the verity of their testimonies.[14] When the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and can not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is the killing of the victim.[15] | |||||