8/4/2019 Being Evidence That is Negative in Nature and Self

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/being-evidence-that-is-negative-in-nature-and-self 1/7

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 besupported 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, 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.” 

The Decano Law Firm - Dagupan City 

search... 

  Home 

  Contact Us 

  News 

  Links 

8/4/2019 Being Evidence That is Negative in Nature and Self

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/being-evidence-that-is-negative-in-nature-and-self 2/7

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)

8/4/2019 Being Evidence That is Negative in Nature and Self

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/being-evidence-that-is-negative-in-nature-and-self 3/7

8/4/2019 Being Evidence That is Negative in Nature and Self

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/being-evidence-that-is-negative-in-nature-and-self 4/7

 

“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 evidencethat 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 orclose friends of the accused. This case (People vs. Larrañaga, 463 SCRA 652 (2005) presents to

us a balance scale whereby perched on one end is appellant’s 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 beestablished with clean and convincing evidence.

On the other hand, denial is, as already claimed, an intrinsically weak defense. To meritcredibility, 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, 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, pr evail one the bare

denials by the accused. Where there is positive identification of the accused as the perpetratorsof 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

8/4/2019 Being Evidence That is Negative in Nature and Self

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/being-evidence-that-is-negative-in-nature-and-self 5/7

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 forappellant 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 Marilou’s 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 physicallyimpossible 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 inthe 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 shehad 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 herto 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

8/4/2019 Being Evidence That is Negative in Nature and Self

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/being-evidence-that-is-negative-in-nature-and-self 6/7

others, of alibi, a defense of the accused Mario Quirol. The Supreme Court decreed:

“xxx Anent Mario’s defense of alibi, despite corroboration from Exequiel Aranas, it is still aninherently 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 whereMario 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 onalibis 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 victim’s assailants. To merit credibility, it must be buttressed by strong

evidence of non-culpability. Also, being a negative defense, denial must be substantiated byclear 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 thepart 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 aweak defense, for it is easy to concoct, and difficult to disprove. It cannot stand vis-à-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 prosecution’s 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 arenegative, 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

8/4/2019 Being Evidence That is Negative in Nature and Self

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/being-evidence-that-is-negative-in-nature-and-self 7/7

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 victim’s 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 testifiedon 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 againemphasized:

“xxx The trial court correctly rejected the appellant’s defense of alibi. Such a defense cannotprevail 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 situscriminics when the crime was committed xxx”. 

7. The cases of People vs. Magallanes 410 SCRA 183 (2003); People vs. Watiwat, 410 SCRA324 (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 >