An alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the petitioners by credible witnesses who have no motive to testify falsely.

RUSTICO ABAY, JR. and REYNALDO DARILAG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 165896, September 19, 2008.

“x x x.

Additionally, petitioners claim that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding their defense of alibi. However, we are in agreement with the OSG that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused in this case.

Worth stressing, this Court has consistently ruled that the defense of alibi must be received with suspicion and caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be easily fabricated. [People v. Tuppal, G.R. Nos. 137982-85, January 13, 2003, 395 SCRA 72, 80]. Alibi is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification of the accused. An alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the petitioners by credible witnesses who have no motive to testify falsely. [Vergara v. People, G.R. No. 128720, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 313, 325].

In this case, petitioners’ defense of alibi rested solely upon their own self-serving testimonies. For their defense of alibi to prosper, it should have been clearly and indisputably demonstrated by them that it was physically impossible for them to have been at, or near, the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. But as the trial court correctly ruled, it was not impossible for the petitioners to be at the scene of the crime since petitioners’ place of detention is less than an hour ride from the crime scene. Moreover, no dubious reason or improper motive was established to render the testimonies of Andrade, Tolentino and Aban false and unbelievable. Absent the most compelling reason, it is highly inconceivable why Andrade, Tolentino and Aban would openly concoct a story that would send innocent men to jail.

X x x.”