For ALIBI to prosper, it does not suffice to prove that the accused was at another place when the crime was committed, but it must also be shown that there was PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for him to have been at the scene of the crime.

"We find that the RTC correctly rejected appellants' defense of denial and alibi. AAA positively identified appellants as the persons who raped her. She knew them as they were neighbors since childhood. Denial fails in the light of AAA's positive declaration.

Appellants' alibi is also unavailing. For alibi to prosper, it does not suffice to prove that the accused was at another place when the crime was committed, but it must also be shown that there was physical impossibility for him to have been at the scene of the crime.51 Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.52 Appellant Allain testified that at around 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. of July 16, 1998, he was at Kit's house, which was located around 100 meters away from their own house. On the other hand, appellant Vergel testified that he passed by Kit's house at past 8:00 p.m. and saw Allain thereat. Notably, appellant Allain testified that AAA's house is also 100 meters away from their house. Thus, it would show that Kit's house is also in the same vicinity where the crime was committed. Hence, it was not physically impossible for the appellants to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident."

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VERGEL ANCAJAS AND ALLAIN* ANCAJAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/oct2015/gr_199270_2015.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com