This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-07-07 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The bare and uncorroborated denial of appellant and his defense of alibi cannot prevail. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] In order that alibi can prosper, not only must an accused prove his being in another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it would have been impossible for him, given the circumstances, to be at the crime scene at the appointed time.[23] | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The bare denial of appellant and his defense of alibi cannot overcome the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Denial by itself is an intrinsically weak defense.[17] Neither can the claim of alibi be given weight. For alibi to prosper, not only must the person invoking it prove being in another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it would have been impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the appointed time.[18] Appellant himself has confirmed that the public market in Cadiz City where he claims to have been with his wife is only about five meters away from the scene of the crime, i.e., the reclamation area in Hitalon Bridge, Cadiz City. The house of appellant, upon the other hand, is within the same barangay where the killing has occurred. | |||||