Mere denial and alibi are weak defenses
Someone accused of a crime before the Court should base her defense on more than merely denying the charges or claiming to be somewhere else when the crime occurred. These are often not strong enough to be reliable legal defenses.
The Supreme Court has many, many decisions ruling that mere denial and alibi are weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of a prosecution witness. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. And the defense of alibi is also a flimsy shield against conviction.
Contents
- People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Anticamara y Cabillo and Fernando Calaguas Fernandez a.k.a. Lando Calaguas, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011
- People of the Philippines vs. Donato Bulasag y Arellano alias “DONG”, G.R. No. 172869, July 28, 2008
- People of the Philippines vs. Gonzalo Penaso @ “Lulu”, G.R. No. 121980, February 23, 2000
- People of the Philippines vs. Bobby Agunos, G.R. No. 130961, October 13, 1999
- People of the Philippines vs. Jovito Barona, Felipe Ferrariz, Elpidio Sara, jr., @ “Matias Sara” and Roberto Barona, @ “Pewe Barona,” G.R. No. 119595, January 25, 2000
People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Anticamara y Cabillo and Fernando Calaguas Fernandez a.k.a. Lando Calaguas, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011
As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant Lando that he was in Tarlac at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for Lando to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. During the trial of the case, Lando testified that the distance between his house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac to the town of Rosales, Pangasinan is only around forty (40) kilometers. Such distance can be traversed in less than 30 minutes using a private car and when the travel is continuous. Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant Lando to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.
People of the Philippines vs. Donato Bulasag y Arellano alias “DONG”, G.R. No. 172869, July 28, 2008
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 vs. Gonzalo Penaso @ “Lulu”, G.R. No. 121980, February 23, 2000
With respect to the appellant’s claim that the victim was attending her classes at the time she was raped, we note that complainant’s explanation that it was their vacant period, 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.
People of the Philippines vs. Bobby Agunos, G.R. No. 130961, October 13, 1999
People of the Philippines vs. Jovito Barona, Felipe Ferrariz, Elpidio Sara, jr., @ “Matias Sara” and Roberto Barona, @ “Pewe Barona,” G.R. No. 119595, January 25, 2000
0 Comments