Being evidence that is negative in nature and self- serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies

of prosecution witnesses who testify on clean and positive evidence.

On the other hand, denial is, as already claimed, an intrinsically weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. To be sure, it is a negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. (People vs. Beruega, G.R. No. 142931, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 674). Denial is intrinsically a weak defense. It must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to be credible. Correspondingly, courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily. (People vs. Dela Cruz, G. R. No. 152176, October 11, 2003 412 SCRA 503). Denial is inherently a weak defense. It cannot prevail over positive identification, unless buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. (People vs. Malones, G. R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004 425 SCRA 318). To merit credibility, denial must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. To be sure, it is a negative, selfserving evidence, that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. xxx The categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses must, perforce, prevail one the bare denials by the accused. Where there is positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, their denial and alibi cannot be sustained. Thus, these defenses were correctly rejected by the trial court (Peole vs. Beruega, G. R. No. 142931, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 674) xxx.

The Decano Law Firm - Dagupan City

search...

Home Contact Us News Links

Main Menu
Home About Us Practice Areas Articles FAQs Calendar Links Contact Us Search
Home Articles Legal Publications Annotation: Alibi and Denial

Annotation: Alibi and Denial

Written by Decano Law Firm Wednesday, 16 January 2008

(Rodolfo C. Velasco, petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166479, February 28, 2006 483 SCRA 649)

ANNOTATION BY JUDGE ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO, (Ret.)*

Preliminary Statement The main defenses of the accused in the above-entitled case are alibi and denial, hence this annotation deals simply on said stated defenses. Before delving into the intricacies of this matter at issue, this writer deems it fitting and proper to give the definition or explanation of each term. Alibi according to the Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, is a common name for the defense frequently offered in criminal cases that the person accused was so far away from the scene of the crime when it was committed, that he could not have committed it. It is an evidence offered by one charged with a crime to support the statement that at the time of its commission he was at a place so remote or that the crime took place under such circumstances that he could not possibly have committed it. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused. To establish alibi, the accused must show that he was at some other place for such a period of time that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission. (People vs. Lumantas, 28 SCRA 764, 1969, cited by Jose Agaton Sibal, Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, Central LawBook Publishing Co. Inc. Q.C. 1986 p. 39.) Denial according to Webster is an assertion that an allegation or something considered true is false. In criminal cases, the accused refuse to admit the commission of a crime filed against him. In civil cases, a denial in pleading transverses an allegation made in the pleading of an adverse party and puts the matter so denied in issue, to be resolved upon the trial of the action. (Sibal, Philippine Legal Encyclopedia op. cit. p. 226.)

Alibi and Denial are Weak Defenses It is axiomatic that alibi is inherently weak and unavailing, and should be established with clear and convincing evidence in order to be acceptable. The burden is upon the accused to present credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime; otherwise, an alibi may not prevail over the positive testimony and clear identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. (People vs. Gomez G.R. No. 132171, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 661, cited in the case of People vs. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554 October 1, 2003, 412 SCRA 470; People vs. Malones, 425 SCRA 318 (2004).

xxx Settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Being evidence that is negative in nature and self- serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clean and positive evidence. On top of its inherent weakness, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is corroborated only by relatives or close friends of the accused. This case (People vs. Larraaga, 463 SCRA 652 (2005) presents to us a balance scale whereby perched on one end is appellants alibi supported by witnesses who were either their relatives, friends or classmates, while on the other end in the positive identification of the herein appellants by the prosecution witnesses who were not, in any way, related to the victims. With the above jurisprudence as guide, we are certain that the balance must tilt in favor of the latter. xxx Alibi is a defense that can easily be fabricated. To serve us basis for acquittal, it must be established with clean and convincing evidence. On the other hand, denial is, as already claimed, an intrinsically weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. To be sure, it is a negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. (People vs. Beruega, G.R. No. 142931, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 674). Denial is intrinsically a weak defense. It must be supported by strong evidence of nonculpability in order to be credible. Correspondingly, courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily. (People vs. Dela Cruz, G. R. No. 152176, October 11, 2003 412 SCRA 503). Denial is inherently a weak defense. It cannot prevail over positive identification, unless buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. (People vs. Malones, G. R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004 425 SCRA 318). To merit credibility, denial must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. To be sure, it is a negative, self-serving evidence, that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. xxx The categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses must, perforce, prevail one the bare denials by the accused. Where there is positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, their denial and alibi cannot be sustained. Thus, these defenses were correctly rejected by the trial court (Peole vs. Beruega, G. R. No. 142931, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 674) xxx. When will alibi prosper? For alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and distance must be strictly met. It is not to prove that the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it

was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. (People vs. Oco G. R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003 412 SCRA 190). xxx In the above-quoted case, Ferraren, who allegedly saw the appellant at the chapel at the time of the shooting incident, testified that the distance between the chapel and the crime scene can be negotiated on foot within five minutes. Given this distance, it is not impossible for appellant to be at the scene when the crime was committed.xxx This ruling was reiterated in another case promulgated on September 30, 2003, (People vs. Alfonso, G. R. Nos. 136742-43, 412 SCRA 293), when it was held: xxx As against Marilous positive and categorical testimony, appellant could only proffer the defense of alibi. In a chain of cases, we ruled that for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. This is not so in this instant case. Appellant admitted in his testimony that he was at home with his family in San Simon, Pampanga on January 15, 1996 when the crime took place. It must be recalled that the rape was committed in the evening of that day at San Nicolas of the same town. We can safely conclude, therefore, that it was physically possible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.xxx

What does physical impossibility connote? Physical impossibility takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime, (scene of the planning of the crime) and the place where appellant maintains she was at, but more importantly, the accessibility between those two points-how this distance translates to number of hours of travel. Geographical distances may be taken judicial notice of, but this alone will not suffice for purposes of proving an alibi. (People vs. Marollano G.R. No. 105004, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 84, 112) cited in the case of People vs. Mamarion G. R. No. 137554, October 1, 2003 412 SCRA 472). xxx In the case cited above, the burden is on Harisco to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for her to have been in her duplex in Capitol Heights where Gale testified that she had breakfast meeting with and gave instructions to members of the group in carrying out the kidnapping with reason of Roberta Cokin. Harisco failed to discharge such burden. The court does not find any evidence that shows that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the fact that appellant Harisco can be at the airport in a few minutes time thus making it possible for her to be in the breakfast meeting before going to the airport for the 6:10 A.M. flight, if indeed the flight of appellant Harisco from Bacolod City to Cebu was actually 6:10 in the morning of July 10, 1995.xxx

RELEVANT CASES 1. People vs. Quirol, G. R. No. 149259, October 20, 2005) 473 SCRA 509, speaks among

others, of alibi, a defense of the accused Mario Quirol. The Supreme Court decreed: xxx Anent Marios defense of alibi, despite corroboration from Exequiel Aranas, it is still an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail even a positive identification from a witness found credible by the trial court. Absent arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of significance and influence, we will not interfere with the credence given to the testimony of Wilson over that of Mario and that of Exequiel, as assessments of credibility are generally left to the trial court whose proximate contact with those who take the witness stand places it in a more competent position to discriminate between true and false testimony. Moreover, as correctly discussed by the Court of Appeals, the distance between the scene of the crimes and where Mario claims he passed out is not so far away as to prevent him from being physically present at the place of the crimes or its immediate vicinity at the time the crimes were committed.xxx 2. People vs. Tagana, G. R. No. 133027, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 620, deals among others on alibis and denials, Observed the Supreme Court: xxx Appellants vehemently deny having committed the crime Jurisprudence however holds that denial like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that appellants were at the scene of the crime and were the victims assailants. To merit credibility, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Also, being a negative defense, denial must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise, it would merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value of the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters: As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, this Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the appellants when categorical and consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over alibi and denial.xxx. 3. People vs. Pabillare, G. R. Nos. 139474-75 December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 104, centers, among others, on denial and alibi. The Supreme Court mandated: xxx It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases that denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense, for it is easy to concoct, and difficult to disprove. It cannot stand vis--vis the unequivocal assertion to the contrary of the complainant. It can safely be stated that the defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecutions evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.xxx 4. In the case of People vs. Felipe, G. R. NO. 142505, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 146, the Supreme Court ruled: xxx Well-settled is the rule that such positive identification, when categorical and consistent, prevails over these twin defenses. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, they are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. For it is to prosper, proof that the accused

were somewhere else when the crime was committed is insufficient; it must likewise be shown that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time. In the case before us, appellants failed to show the physical impossibility thereof. xxx 5. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Rollon, G. R. No. 131915, September 3, 2003, The Supreme Court held: xxx The denial of the appellant of the crime charged cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses that he and his cohorts killed the victim. Like the defense of alibi, a denial is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that the appellant was at the scene of the incident and was one of the victims assailants. Moreover, denial being a negative defense must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Otherwise, it would merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. The denial offered by the appellant is not only inherently weak, it lacked a strong corroboration. Indeed, even if the defense of denial is supported by the testimony of friends of the appellant, it deserves the barest consideration. 6. In the case of People vs. Aquinda, G. R. No. 133733, August 29, 2003, 410 SCRA 162, The Supreme Court reiterated the rulings in the previous cases cited. The Supreme Court again emphasized: xxx The trial court correctly rejected the appellants defense of alibi. Such a defense cannot prevail over the positive and straight-forward identification of the appellants as the assailants. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is thus generally rejected. The appellants were burdened to prove with clear and convincing evidence that at the time of the commission of the crime charged, they were in a place other than the situs of the crime such that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the situs criminics when the crime was committed xxx. 7. The cases of People vs. Magallanes 410 SCRA 183 (2003); People vs. Watiwat, 410 SCRA 324 (2003); People vs. Herevese, 410 SCRA 592, (2003) reiterated all the doctrines in cases 1 to 6 and repeating the said rulings will only sound superfluous. 8. Bilonghilot vs. RTC, Zamboanga del Norte G. R. No. 128512, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 221 stresses among others that alibi, to be believed must receive credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses; An alibi becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by relatives and friends who may not be impartial witnesses. The Highest Tribunal further repeated: xxx To be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong enclose of non-culpability.xxx

< Prev

Next >