Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    Alibi

    Uploaded by

    Francesco Celestial Britanico
    The document discusses the weaknesses of alibi and denial defenses under Philippine criminal law jurisprudence. It provides several cases that establish that an alibi defense must prove that it was physically impossible for the defendant to be at the crime scene, and that alibi and denial cannot overcome positive testimony from witnesses. The document also notes that alibis are viewed with suspicion since they can be easily fabricated, and denials must be strongly supported to have credibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alibi

    Uploaded by

    Francesco Celestial Britanico
    140 views2 pages
    The document discusses the weaknesses of alibi and denial defenses under Philippine criminal law jurisprudence. It provides several cases that establish that an alibi defense must prove that it was physically impossible for the defendant to be at the crime scene, and that alibi and denial cannot overcome positive testimony from witnesses. The document also notes that alibis are viewed with suspicion since they can be easily fabricated, and denials must be strongly supported to have credibility.

    Original Description:

    Jurisprudence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the weaknesses of alibi and denial defenses under Philippine criminal law jurisprudence. It provides several cases that establish that an alibi defense must prove that it was physically impossible for the defendant to be at the crime scene, and that alibi and denial cannot overcome positive testimony from witnesses. The document also notes that alibis are viewed with suspicion since they can be easily fabricated, and denials must be strongly supported to have credibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    140 views2 pages

    Alibi

    Uploaded by

    Francesco Celestial Britanico
    The document discusses the weaknesses of alibi and denial defenses under Philippine criminal law jurisprudence. It provides several cases that establish that an alibi defense must prove that it was physically impossible for the defendant to be at the crime scene, and that alibi and denial cannot overcome positive testimony from witnesses. The document also notes that alibis are viewed with suspicion since they can be easily fabricated, and denials must be strongly supported to have credibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ALIBI

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. DONATO BULASAG Y ARELLANO


    ALIAS "DONG", APPELLANT.
    [G.R. No. 172869, July 28, 2008]
    Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail
    over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense
    which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Alibi is an
    inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it
    can easily be fabricated. For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some
    other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at
    the locus criminis at the time of its commission. Appellant's own evidence shows that he was in
    the immediate environs when the incident occurred. For he stated that he was just in his own
    house, barely three meters away from the house of the victim, Estelita.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GONZALO PENASO @ "LULU",


    accused-appellant.
    [G.R. No. 121980. February 23, 2000]

    We find complainants testimony credible, while appellants defenses of alibi and denial are
    lacking in truth and candor. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi
    and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant.19
    [People v. Tabion, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999, p. 18; People v. Accion, G.R. Nos.
    122550-51, August 11, 1999, p. 11.] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with
    suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.20 [People v. Hivela, G.R.
    No. 132061, September 21, 1999, p. 5.] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be
    buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.21 [People v. Hivela,
    supra. citing People v. Burce, 269 SCRA 293 (1997).] We find that despite his stance that several
    persons watched him demonstrate how to cook banana chips in Ubay, Bohol in the morning of
    November 16, 1989,22 [TSN, December 29, 1994, pp. 3-4.] appellant failed to present any
    disinterested witness to support his claim. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused show
    he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, but there must also be clear and
    convincing proof that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its
    commission.23 [People v. Agunos, G.R. No. 130961, October 13, 1999, p. 9.]
    With respect to the appellants claim that the victim was attending her classes at the time she was
    raped, we note that complainants explanation that it was their vacant period,24 [TSN, August
    13, 1993, p. 11.] was not rebutted by the defense. All told, we see no reason to depart from the
    rule that positive identification of the malefactor prevails over the defenses of alibi and denial.

    [G.R. No. 130961. October 13, 1999]


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BOBBY AGUNOS, accusedappellants.

    The shopworn rule is that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused was at some place
    else at the time of the commission of the crime, it must also be proved by clear and convincing
    evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the
    time of its commission and commit the crime. His aunts testimony that he was seen sleeping
    outside the polling place from 1:00 oclock to 3:00 oclock in the early morning of May 9, 1995
    must be taken with a grain of salt inasmuch as accused-appellant failed to present other
    disinterested witnesses aside from a close relation to corroborate his claim that he was nowhere
    near complainants home at the time of the commission of the crime.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOVITO BARONA, FELIPE


    FERRARIZ, ELPIDIO SARA, JR., @ "Matias Sara" and ROBERTO BARONA, @ "Pewe
    Barona," accused-appellants.
    [G.R. No. 119595. January 25, 2000]

    The bare denials and alibi interposed by accused-appellants when juxtaposed with the positive
    declarations of the prosecution witnesses is not worthy of credence. Recognized as inherently
    weak defenses, which is the usual refuge of scoundrels, alibi and denial must be buttressed by
    other convincing evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. It all the more fails where the
    assailants were positively identified by credible witness, against whom no ulterior motive can be
    attributed, as in this case. Records, show that the place where accused-appellants claimed they
    were at the time of the incident ranges from a distance of thirty (30) meters to about a kilometer
    away from the place of the crime. Other than these unsubstantiated, self-serving and negative
    statements of their alleged respective locations, no other evidence was presented to show that it
    was impossible for them to physically traverse the two places within a short span of time as to
    preclude their presence in the locus criminis. Such self-serving statements deserve no weight in
    law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of witnesses who testified
    on positive points. A distance of about five kilometers between the scene of the crime and the
    whereabouts of the accused has been considered as not so far as to negate physical presence at
    the scene of the crime. With more reason then, the fact that a mere neighbor whose house is
    about fifty (50) meters from the locus criminis which obviously can be negotiated by mere
    walking negates the posture of alibi. As consistently held by the court, for alibi to prosper, there
    must be potent proof that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the
    crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission. As mentioned earlier, no such, convincing
    proof was presented to substantiate their proffered defenses.

    You might also like