[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
143 views3 pages

Legal Insights on Alibi Defense

The document discusses the defense of alibi in criminal cases. It provides that for an alibi to be successful, the defense must prove (a) the presence of the accused in another place at the time of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. The defense must demonstrate that the accused was so far away that they could not have been at or near the crime scene when it occurred. Delay or vacillation in reporting a crime can impair a complainant's credibility. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not for the accused to prove their innocence.

Uploaded by

nakedfringe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
143 views3 pages

Legal Insights on Alibi Defense

The document discusses the defense of alibi in criminal cases. It provides that for an alibi to be successful, the defense must prove (a) the presence of the accused in another place at the time of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. The defense must demonstrate that the accused was so far away that they could not have been at or near the crime scene when it occurred. Delay or vacillation in reporting a crime can impair a complainant's credibility. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not for the accused to prove their innocence.

Uploaded by

nakedfringe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

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. 1

By physical impossibility we refer to the distance and facility of


access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he
was when the crime was committed. (long distance)

In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court held, for the defense of
alibi to prosper, the following must be established:
(a)
(b)

The presence of the accused in another place at the time


of the commission of the offense; and
The physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission. 2

The defense of the accused should hold water since .


The alibi should be given credence by this Honorable Court.
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.3
Alibi is not always false and without merit. 4 Contrary to the
common notion, alibi is not always a weak defense. Sometimes,

People v. Cacayan, G. R. No. 180499, July 9, 2008; People V. De leon, G. R. No 180762,


March 4, 2009
2
People v. Larranaga, 463 SCRA 652; People v. Enriquez, 465 SCRA 407; People v. Tumulak,
G.R. No 177299, November 28, 2007; People v. Santos, G.R. No. 176735, June 26, 2008
3
People v. Canlas, 372 SCRA 401
4

People v. Cacayan, G. R. No. 180499, July 9, 2008

the fact that the accused was somewhere else may just be the
plain and unvarnished truth.
It was demonstrated by the defense that the accuses was not only
somewhere else when the offense was committed, but so far
away that it would have been at the place of the crime or its
immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
The reason is that no person can be in two place at the same
time.5
Delay or Vacillation by the private complainant in reporting the
sexual assault impairs her credibility because such delay was not
satisfactorily explained.
The private complainants delay is a sign of fabrication.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the guilt of the


accused lies with the prosecution because of the presumption
that the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is
proven. 6

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless


his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. 7
It is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such
burden upon the prosecution.8
The burden is on the accused to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, not on the accused to prove his innocence. 9
5
6
7
8
9

People v. Baro, 383 SCRA 75; People v. Ubina, G. R. No. 176349, July 10, 2007
Artivle III, Bill of Rights, Philippine Constitution
Section 2, Rulre 133, Rules of Court
People v. Solayao, G. R. No. 119220, September 20, 1996
Boac v. people, G. R. No. 180597, November 7, 2008

Appellants alibi deserves credence especially when measured up


against the weak pieces of evidence by the prosecution
In reviewing rape convictions, the Court has been guided by the
three principles, namely: (a) that an accusation of rape can be
made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but
more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b)
that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape as
involving only two [erson, the rapist and the victim, the testimony
of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
(c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength the weakness
of the evidence for the defense. 10

10

People v. Buado, Jr., 688 SCRA 82; People v. Penilla, 694 SCRA 141; People v. Linsie, 711
SCRA 125

You might also like