You're currently signed in as:
User

GENTLE SUPREME PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO F. CONSULTA

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2002-01-23
QUISUMBING, J.
Conceding the fact that accused Elmer Vergara was in San Pedro, Laguna, it is not physically impossible for him to have gone to Pasig, Metro Manila, considering that he had an available means of transportation.  The distance between San Pedro, Laguna where the accused claimed he was at the time the robbery took place, and Pasig, Metro Manila, where the crime was committed, is less than an hour drive by car and can easily be reached by one who, like the accused Elmer Vergara, had a car available to him.[6] Aggrieved by his conviction, Vergara elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 18318, on the sole issue of whether or not petitioner committed the crime charged against him.  The appeal was anchored on two grounds: (1) the alleged dubious identification of Vergara by the private complainant, and  (2) failure of the trial court to appreciate Vergara's alibi that he was on an intelligence mission in San Pedro, Laguna at the time the alleged robbery, specially in view of the corroboration of his alibi by his commanding officer.