Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Alibi

    Uploaded by

    Ernest Levanza
    1) Alibi is generally considered a weak defense that cannot overcome positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. 2) For an alibi defense to succeed, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the crime scene at the time of commission. 3) Positive identification of the accused will destroy an alibi defense, unless the alibi can be proven with clear and convincing evidence that the accused was elsewhere when the crime occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    Alibi

    Uploaded by

    Ernest Levanza
    123 views2 pages
    1) Alibi is generally considered a weak defense that cannot overcome positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. 2) For an alibi defense to succeed, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the crime scene at the time of commission. 3) Positive identification of the accused will destroy an alibi defense, unless the alibi can be proven with clear and convincing evidence that the accused was elsewhere when the crime occurred.

    Original Description:

    Alibi Jurisprudence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Alibi is generally considered a weak defense that cannot overcome positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. 2) For an alibi defense to succeed, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the crime scene at the time of commission. 3) Positive identification of the accused will destroy an alibi defense, unless the alibi can be proven with clear and convincing evidence that the accused was elsewhere when the crime occurred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views2 pages

    Alibi

    Uploaded by

    Ernest Levanza
    1) Alibi is generally considered a weak defense that cannot overcome positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. 2) For an alibi defense to succeed, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the crime scene at the time of commission. 3) Positive identification of the accused will destroy an alibi defense, unless the alibi can be proven with clear and convincing evidence that the accused was elsewhere when the crime occurred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Notes and Jurisprudence on Alibi

    “As a defense, alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light


    of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is evidence negative
    in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the
    testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive
    evidence.” (People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 175929, December 16, 2008)

    “For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove


    that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must
    likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present
    at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of the
    commission” (People vs. Guerrero, G.R. 170360, March 12, 2009)

    “Alibi may serve as a basis for acquittal if it can really be shown


    by clear and convincing evidence that it was indeed physically
    impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time.”
    (People vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 180762, March 4, 2009)

    “Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused


    as perpetrator of the crime. In the face of positive identification of the
    accused by the prosecution witness, such alibi crumbles like a sand
    fortress” (People vs. Vargas, G.R. No. 122765, October 13, 2003.)

    “Positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders


    it impotent where such identification is credible and categorical”
    (People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 173308, June 25, 2008)

    “In a long line of cases, this Court has held that positive
    identification, made categorically and consistently almost always
    prevails over alibi and denial. These defenses, if not substantiated by
    clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and are
    undeserving of weight in law.” (People vs. Nueva, G.R. No. 173248,
    November 3, 2008)

    “For the defense of alibi to prosper, the following must be


    established:
    a. The presence of the accused in another place at the time of the
    commission of the offense; and
    b. The physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime
    at the time of its commission” (People vs. Santos, G.R. No.
    176735, June 26, 2008)
    “Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be
    present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.”
    (People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 172874, December 17, 2008)

    “While the defense of alibi is by nature a weak one, it assumes


    significance and strength where the evidence for the prosecution is
    also intrinsically weak.” (People vs. Canlas, 372 SCRA 401)

    “Alibi is not always false and without merit. Contrary to the


    common notion, alibi is not always a weak defense. Sometimes, the
    fact that the accused was somewhere else may just be the plain and
    unvarnished truth. But to be exonerating, the defense must of alibi
    must be so airtight that it would admit no exception. It must be
    demonstrated that the person charged with the crime was not only
    somewhere else when the offense was committed, but was so far
    away that it would have been physically impossible to have been at
    the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of the
    commission. The reason is that no person can be in two places at the
    same time.” (People vs. Ubina, G.R. No. 176349, July 10, 2007)

    You might also like