Notes and Jurisprudence on Alibi

“As a defense, alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light

of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is evidence negative
in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive
evidence.” (People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 175929, December 16, 2008)

“For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove

that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must
likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present
at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of the
commission” (People vs. Guerrero, G.R. 170360, March 12, 2009)

“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.”
(People vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 180762, March 4, 2009)

“Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused

as perpetrator of the crime. In the face of positive identification of the
accused by the prosecution witness, such alibi crumbles like a sand
fortress” (People vs. Vargas, G.R. No. 122765, October 13, 2003.)

“Positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders

it impotent where such identification is credible and categorical”
(People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 173308, June 25, 2008)

“In a long line of cases, this Court has held that positive
identification, made categorically and consistently almost always
prevails over alibi and denial. These defenses, if not substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and are
undeserving of weight in law.” (People vs. Nueva, G.R. No. 173248,
November 3, 2008)

“For the defense of alibi to prosper, the following must be

established:
a. The presence of the accused in another place at the time of the
commission of the offense; and
b. The physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime
at the time of its commission” (People vs. Santos, G.R. No.
176735, June 26, 2008)
 “Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be
present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.”
(People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 172874, December 17, 2008)

“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.” (People vs. Canlas, 372 SCRA 401)

“Alibi is not always false and without merit. Contrary to the

common notion, alibi is not always a weak defense. Sometimes, the
fact that the accused was somewhere else may just be the plain and
unvarnished truth. But to be exonerating, the defense must of alibi
must be so airtight that it would admit no exception. It must be
demonstrated that the person charged with the crime was not only
somewhere else when the offense was committed, but was so far
away that it would have been physically impossible to have been at
the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of the
commission. The reason is that no person can be in two places at the
same time.” (People vs. Ubina, G.R. No. 176349, July 10, 2007)