ALIBI

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. DONATO BULASAG Y ARELLANO

ALIAS "DONG", APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 172869, July 28, 2008]
Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail
over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense
which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 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, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GONZALO PENASO @ "LULU",

accused-appellant.
[G.R. No. 121980. February 23, 2000]

We find complainants testimony credible, while appellants defenses of alibi and denial are
lacking in truth and candor. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi
and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant.19
[People v. Tabion, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999, p. 18; People v. Accion, G.R. Nos.
122550-51, August 11, 1999, p. 11.] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with
suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.20 [People v. Hivela, G.R.
No. 132061, September 21, 1999, p. 5.] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be
buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.21 [People v. Hivela,
supra. citing People v. Burce, 269 SCRA 293 (1997).] We find that despite his stance that several
persons watched him demonstrate how to cook banana chips in Ubay, Bohol in the morning of
November 16, 1989,22 [TSN, December 29, 1994, pp. 3-4.] appellant failed to present any
disinterested witness to support his claim. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused show
he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, but there must also be clear and
convincing proof that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its
commission.23 [People v. Agunos, G.R. No. 130961, October 13, 1999, p. 9.]
With respect to the appellants claim that the victim was attending her classes at the time she was
raped, we note that complainants explanation that it was their vacant period,24 [TSN, August
13, 1993, p. 11.] 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.

[G.R. No. 130961. October 13, 1999]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BOBBY AGUNOS, accusedappellants.

The shopworn rule is that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused was at some place
else at the time of the commission of the crime, it must also be proved by clear and convincing
evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission and commit the crime. His aunts testimony that he was seen sleeping
outside the polling place from 1:00 oclock to 3:00 oclock in the early morning of May 9, 1995
must be taken with a grain of salt inasmuch as accused-appellant failed to present other
disinterested witnesses aside from a close relation to corroborate his claim that he was nowhere
near complainants home at the time of the commission of the crime.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOVITO BARONA, FELIPE

FERRARIZ, ELPIDIO SARA, JR., @ "Matias Sara" and ROBERTO BARONA, @ "Pewe
Barona," accused-appellants.
[G.R. No. 119595. January 25, 2000]

The bare denials and alibi interposed by accused-appellants when juxtaposed with the positive
declarations of the prosecution witnesses is not worthy of credence. Recognized as inherently
weak defenses, which is the usual refuge of scoundrels, alibi and denial must be buttressed by
other convincing evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. It all the more fails where the
assailants were positively identified by credible witness, against whom no ulterior motive can be
attributed, as in this case. Records, show that the place where accused-appellants claimed they
were at the time of the incident ranges from a distance of thirty (30) meters to about a kilometer
away from the place of the crime. Other than these unsubstantiated, self-serving and negative
statements of their alleged respective locations, no other evidence was presented to show that it
was impossible for them to physically traverse the two places within a short span of time as to
preclude their presence in the locus criminis. Such self-serving statements deserve no weight in
law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of witnesses who testified
on positive points. A distance of about five kilometers between the scene of the crime and the
whereabouts of the accused has been considered as not so far as to negate physical presence at
the scene of the crime. With more reason then, the fact that a mere neighbor whose house is
about fifty (50) meters from the locus criminis which obviously can be negotiated by mere
walking negates the posture of alibi. As consistently held by the court, for alibi to prosper, there
must be potent proof that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the
crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission. As mentioned earlier, no such, convincing
proof was presented to substantiate their proffered defenses.