This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-09-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Regarding appellants' defense of alibi, the same cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellants as perpetrators of the crime charged. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the appellants to prove that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed. They must further demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[21] Here, appellants interposed the alibi that they were at a place other than Brgy. xxx, xxx, xxx xxx at the time the crime was committed; however, no one corroborated their testimonies. Hence, we agree that their alibi deserves no merit. | |||||
|
2001-11-26 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Alibi and denial can not prevail over the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime charged.[51] Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative allegations and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[52] | |||||