Lawyerly

GR No. 214506

2015-10-19

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Anent Parba's alibi, the Court finds the same to be unavailing. It is well-settled that alibi as a defense is inherently weak and unreliable owing to the fact that it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.[32] To establish alibi, the accused must prove that: (a) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[33]

GR No. 205228

2015-07-15

PEOPLE v. ROLLY ADRIANO Y SAMSON

PEREZ, J.

On the alibi as defense, time and again, we have ruled alibis like denials, are inherently weak and unreliable because they can easily be fabricated.[32] For alibi to prosper, the accused must convincingly prove that he was somewhere else at the time when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.[33] In the case at bar, Adriano claimed he was in Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga at the time of incident. Adriano's claim failed to persuade. As admitted, Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga was only less than an hour away from the crime scene, Barangay Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Hence, it was not physically impossible for Adriano to be at the crime scene at the time of the incident.

GR No. 190322

2014-11-26

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO AMORA Y VISCARRA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

For the defense of alibi to prosper, "the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime"[16] during its commission. "Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed."[17]

GR No. 190340

2013-07-24

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

However, for the defense of alibi to prosper, "the accused must prove (a) that [she] was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for [her] to be at the scene of the crime" [22] during its commission. "Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the [crime scene] and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. [She] must demonstrate that [she] was so far away and could not have been physically present at the [crime scene] and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed."[23]

GR No. 191065

2011-06-13

PEOPLE v. JONIE DOMINGUEZ

SERENO, J.

To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places." [35]

GR No. 176389

2010-12-14

ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE

ABAD, J.

We have held in a number of cases that alibi is an inherently weak and unreliable defense, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.[127] To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[128] Due to its doubtful nature, alibi must be supported by clear and convincing proof.[129]

GR No. 185849

2010-04-07

PEOPLE v. JONJIE ESOY Y HUNGOY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As to appellants' defense of alibi, it cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, especially in the face of categorical statements coming from a credible witness who has no ill motives in testifying. [19] Pabalan's testimony was straightforward and though she became emotional during the middle part of her testimony, she remained consistent all through out even on cross-examination. Appellants have also not shown any reason for Pabalan to testify falsely against them.

GR No. 171453

2009-06-18

PEOPLE v. MANUEL DELPINO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[24] Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[25] In the case at bar, accused appellant failed to satisfy the said requisites, especially the second. It was shown during the trial that it would take the accused ten minutes to walk from the JB Line Terminal to the house of the victim.[26] Besides, in going home, he would have to pass by the house of the victim.[27]

GR No. 172069

2008-01-30

PEOPLE v. MARIO S. MARTIN

CORONA, J.

While it is true that these documents could have been considered hearsay if the affiants had not been called to the witness stand to testify on the truth of the contents thereof,[22] this rule is not applicable here for the following reasons.

GR No. 131923

2002-12-05

PEOPLE v. NIEL PIEDAD Y CONSOLACION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In line with current jurisprudence[43] however, we further grant P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of the victim aside from the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity granted by the trial court. As borne out by human nature and experience, a

GR No. 134484

2002-01-30

PEOPLE v. LEO ABEJUELA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased, Juresmundo Moradas. In addition, however, the victim's heirs should be awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[31]

GR No. 138303

2001-11-26

PEOPLE v. ELROSWELL MANZANO Y BREBONERA

PARDO, J.

Considering accused-appellant's alibi, for this defense to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else.[49] Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[50] Accused-appellant's claim that he was at the house of his sister Salvacion Castro in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City, even if true, did not preclude the possibility of his coming to the scene of the crime at Karuhatan, Valenzuela, which was just two (2) rides away, or which could be reached after approximately an hour. The Court is not convinced that it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to have left his sister's residence in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City to commit the crime in Karuhatan, Valenzuela and return to Bagong Silang, Caloocan City due to the proximity of the two places.

GR No. 137676

2001-09-27

PEOPLE v. ATTY. ROBERTO DIONISIO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The trial court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, alleged in the information, is duly supported by the records. Treachery was present when appellant and his co-accused shot the victim suddenly and swiftly, giving him no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation.[33] Moreover, they took advantage of their superior strength when assaulted the victim who was unarmed and could not defend himself.[34] However, abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.[35] The killing, being qualified by treachery, is murder. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[36]

	GR No. 214506 2015-10-19	PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA Y SOLON PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Anent Parba's alibi, the Court finds the same to be unavailing. It is well-settled that alibi as a defense is inherently weak and unreliable owing to the fact that it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.[32] To establish alibi, the accused must prove that: (a) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[33]
	GR No. 205228 2015-07-15	PEOPLE v. ROLLY ADRIANO Y SAMSON PEREZ, J.
On the alibi as defense, time and again, we have ruled alibis like denials, are inherently weak and unreliable because they can easily be fabricated.[32] For alibi to prosper, the accused must convincingly prove that he was somewhere else at the time when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.[33] In the case at bar, Adriano claimed he was in Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga at the time of incident. Adriano's claim failed to persuade. As admitted, Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga was only less than an hour away from the crime scene, Barangay Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Hence, it was not physically impossible for Adriano to be at the crime scene at the time of the incident.
	GR No. 190322 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO AMORA Y VISCARRA DEL CASTILLO, J.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, "the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime"[16] during its commission. "Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed."[17]
	GR No. 190340 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
However, for the defense of alibi to prosper, "the accused must prove (a) that [she] was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for [her] to be at the scene of the crime" [22] during its commission. "Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the [crime scene] and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. [She] must demonstrate that [she] was so far away and could not have been physically present at the [crime scene] and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed."[23]
	GR No. 191065 2011-06-13	PEOPLE v. JONIE DOMINGUEZ SERENO, J.
To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places." [35]
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
We have held in a number of cases that alibi is an inherently weak and unreliable defense, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.[127] To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[128] Due to its doubtful nature, alibi must be supported by clear and convincing proof.[129]
	GR No. 185849 2010-04-07	PEOPLE v. JONJIE ESOY Y HUNGOY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to appellants' defense of alibi, it cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, especially in the face of categorical statements coming from a credible witness who has no ill motives in testifying. [19] Pabalan's testimony was straightforward and though she became emotional during the middle part of her testimony, she remained consistent all through out even on cross-examination. Appellants have also not shown any reason for Pabalan to testify falsely against them.
	GR No. 171453 2009-06-18	PEOPLE v. MANUEL DELPINO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[24] Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[25] In the case at bar, accused appellant failed to satisfy the said requisites, especially the second. It was shown during the trial that it would take the accused ten minutes to walk from the JB Line Terminal to the house of the victim.[26] Besides, in going home, he would have to pass by the house of the victim.[27]
	GR No. 172069 2008-01-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO S. MARTIN CORONA, J.
While it is true that these documents could have been considered hearsay if the affiants had not been called to the witness stand to testify on the truth of the contents thereof,[22] this rule is not applicable here for the following reasons.
	GR No. 131923 2002-12-05	PEOPLE v. NIEL PIEDAD Y CONSOLACION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In line with current jurisprudence[43] however, we further grant P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of the victim aside from the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity granted by the trial court. As borne out by human nature and experience, a
	GR No. 134484 2002-01-30	PEOPLE v. LEO ABEJUELA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased, Juresmundo Moradas. In addition, however, the victim's heirs should be awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[31]
	GR No. 138303 2001-11-26	PEOPLE v. ELROSWELL MANZANO Y BREBONERA PARDO, J.
Considering accused-appellant's alibi, for this defense to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else.[49] Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[50] Accused-appellant's claim that he was at the house of his sister Salvacion Castro in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City, even if true, did not preclude the possibility of his coming to the scene of the crime at Karuhatan, Valenzuela, which was just two (2) rides away, or which could be reached after approximately an hour. The Court is not convinced that it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to have left his sister's residence in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City to commit the crime in Karuhatan, Valenzuela and return to Bagong Silang, Caloocan City due to the proximity of the two places.
	GR No. 137676 2001-09-27	PEOPLE v. ATTY. ROBERTO DIONISIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The trial court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, alleged in the information, is duly supported by the records. Treachery was present when appellant and his co-accused shot the victim suddenly and swiftly, giving him no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation.[33] Moreover, they took advantage of their superior strength when assaulted the victim who was unarmed and could not defend himself.[34] However, abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.[35] The killing, being qualified by treachery, is murder. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[36]

PEOPLE v. JESEMIEL MOSQUERRA