Search results
Accused-appellant’s defense is based mainly on denial and alibi. However, "[n]othing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness."33. In People v. Mateo,34 the Court pronounced:
As against these, accused-appellant offered denial and alibi as defenses, which jurisprudence has long considered weak and unreliable. As noted by the Court of Appeals: Accused-appellant also offered alibi as a defense. He asserts that he was at home when the stabbing incident happened.
The trial court did not believe accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi in light of the positive testimony of prosecution eyewitness Edgardo Gamboa that accused-appellant was the person who hacked the victim with a bolo and banged her head against the front portion of a tomb.
Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. [40]
Courts reject alibi when there are credible eyewitnesses to the crime who can positively identify the accused. 82 Alibi is an inherently weak defense and courts must receive it with caution because one can easily fabricate an alibi. 83 Jurisprudence holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive declarations ...
Further, jurisprudence has held that courts give less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives. One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it.
evidence; alibi as a defense; degree of oral proof. — Alibi is the weakest defense that an accused can avail of, and oral proof thereof must be clearly and satisfactorily established because it is so easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it cannot be given credit.
It is a time-honored principle in jurisprudence that positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. 24 For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for ...
Alibi, in the absence of any convincing evidence that it is physically impossible on the part of the accused to be in the crime scene, is always considered by the Supreme Court as the weakest defense.
Accused Logrosa and Palada, for their part, denied any participation in the commission of the crime and interposed the defense of alibi. Palada declared that he was asleep in his cousin's house at the time of the incident, while Logrosa claimed that he was then in Balanga City, Bataan.
