Resolved That the Element of Physical Impossibility in the Defense of Alibi Be Removed
Content
Resolved that the element of physical impossibility in the defense of alibi be removed (Affirmative Practicability)
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 (People v Evangelio, 2011). It is practicable to remove this element from the defense of alibi because it renders very weak to the point of unusable the testimony of witnesses who saw the accused in a certain place at the time the crime was being committed, as well as other proof that the accused may want to present, just because physical impossibility cannot be established. Reasons for the practicability of this amended will be discussed below. Innocent until proven guilty. This is how each accused should be treated before each judgment is handed down and treated as final and executor. However, the defense of alibi under Philippine criminal laws is already tipping the scales in favor of the accused when it requires the accused to climb another rung in the
ladder that leads to his exoneration. In Philippine law the defense of alibi will not stand if the accused cannot establish the element of physical
impossibility. Countless
cases have been satisfactory proof of this. As ruled
in People vs. Aldeguer (1990), If the required physical impossibility of being present at the scene of the crime is not proved, alibi as a defense becomes unavailing to the accused. This requirement was also emphasized in People v. Aniñon: Clear and convincing evidence is required to show that it was physically impossible for the accused to go to the scene of the crime and return to his place. This requirement weakens the defense in favor of the accused and unfairly casts a shadow on the fairness of the judgment rendered because one, the alibi of the accused will always be trumped by positive accuser, and two, just because the accused cannot
identification by the
prove physical impossibility does not automatically mean that alibi should not be considered for his defense. There are so many reasons why a
person, although innocent, may find it hard to prove his actual whereabouts, or if he has proof, may find it hard to convince the judge of the truthfulness of that proof. However, this should not mean that such defense should be disregarded prematurely. The accused, because he should be treated as
innocent until proven guilty, must be provided all the means that he can use to defend himself, and this means taking into consideration his alibi and his denial of not having done the crime, despite the fact that physical
impossibility cannot be established. As what the Supreme Court said in People v. Webb (2010), “A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and unequivocally, “He did it!” without blinking an eye.”
Risk of Producing an Unfair Judgment Dozens of cases reiterate the requirement of physical impossibility and render the defense of alibi of the accused as useless when this requirement is not present. Furthermore, the defense is rendered useless especially if a
witness is there to identify the accused. However, this makes the defense even more one-sided because it does not take into consideration the
positive identification of the accused by witnesses that supports his alibi. The defense of alibi, as it is presently constructed, is very favorable to the
accuser and his witnesses, because as soon as physical impossibility of the alibi is not established, the other merits of the accused alibi of defense is no longer taken into account. The picture that is produced in this case, would be one of the accuser producing his own witnesses saying that the accused was at the scene of the crime, and the accused’s witnesses saying that he was just at a party with them at a house located right next to scene of the crime.
In this scenario, where the alleged location of the accused is just a few steps away from the scene of the crime, it would have been totally possible for the accused to sneak out and commit the crime. However, this should not mean that the witnesses for the accused be treated with more suspicion than the witnesses for the accuser. Of course, it is reasonable to put much weight on the testimony of uninterested parties, but the burden of creating a
compelling argument based on that testimony lies with the prosecution and should not in any way equate to treating the testimony of the accused’s family members or friends with less importance, especially since they will be made aware that they are testifying under oath. There is no other practicable reason for removing the element of physical impossibility other than the reason of ensuring that the person who committed the crime and not someone who was wrongfully accused, is
made to pay for his actions. It is the interest of both the prosecution and the defence to make sure that justice is served. This cannot be done when the definition of the crime itself tilts the scales in favor of the plaintiff without allowing the defense to utilize all resources available to him.
Prepared by: Joselle Amahit CLI II
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 (People v Evangelio, 2011). It is practicable to remove this element from the defense of alibi because it renders very weak to the point of unusable the testimony of witnesses who saw the accused in a certain place at the time the crime was being committed, as well as other proof that the accused may want to present, just because physical impossibility cannot be established. Reasons for the practicability of this amended will be discussed below. Innocent until proven guilty. This is how each accused should be treated before each judgment is handed down and treated as final and executor. However, the defense of alibi under Philippine criminal laws is already tipping the scales in favor of the accused when it requires the accused to climb another rung in the
ladder that leads to his exoneration. In Philippine law the defense of alibi will not stand if the accused cannot establish the element of physical
impossibility. Countless
cases have been satisfactory proof of this. As ruled
in People vs. Aldeguer (1990), If the required physical impossibility of being present at the scene of the crime is not proved, alibi as a defense becomes unavailing to the accused. This requirement was also emphasized in People v. Aniñon: Clear and convincing evidence is required to show that it was physically impossible for the accused to go to the scene of the crime and return to his place. This requirement weakens the defense in favor of the accused and unfairly casts a shadow on the fairness of the judgment rendered because one, the alibi of the accused will always be trumped by positive accuser, and two, just because the accused cannot
identification by the
prove physical impossibility does not automatically mean that alibi should not be considered for his defense. There are so many reasons why a
person, although innocent, may find it hard to prove his actual whereabouts, or if he has proof, may find it hard to convince the judge of the truthfulness of that proof. However, this should not mean that such defense should be disregarded prematurely. The accused, because he should be treated as
innocent until proven guilty, must be provided all the means that he can use to defend himself, and this means taking into consideration his alibi and his denial of not having done the crime, despite the fact that physical
impossibility cannot be established. As what the Supreme Court said in People v. Webb (2010), “A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and unequivocally, “He did it!” without blinking an eye.”
Risk of Producing an Unfair Judgment Dozens of cases reiterate the requirement of physical impossibility and render the defense of alibi of the accused as useless when this requirement is not present. Furthermore, the defense is rendered useless especially if a
witness is there to identify the accused. However, this makes the defense even more one-sided because it does not take into consideration the
positive identification of the accused by witnesses that supports his alibi. The defense of alibi, as it is presently constructed, is very favorable to the
accuser and his witnesses, because as soon as physical impossibility of the alibi is not established, the other merits of the accused alibi of defense is no longer taken into account. The picture that is produced in this case, would be one of the accuser producing his own witnesses saying that the accused was at the scene of the crime, and the accused’s witnesses saying that he was just at a party with them at a house located right next to scene of the crime.
In this scenario, where the alleged location of the accused is just a few steps away from the scene of the crime, it would have been totally possible for the accused to sneak out and commit the crime. However, this should not mean that the witnesses for the accused be treated with more suspicion than the witnesses for the accuser. Of course, it is reasonable to put much weight on the testimony of uninterested parties, but the burden of creating a
compelling argument based on that testimony lies with the prosecution and should not in any way equate to treating the testimony of the accused’s family members or friends with less importance, especially since they will be made aware that they are testifying under oath. There is no other practicable reason for removing the element of physical impossibility other than the reason of ensuring that the person who committed the crime and not someone who was wrongfully accused, is
made to pay for his actions. It is the interest of both the prosecution and the defence to make sure that justice is served. This cannot be done when the definition of the crime itself tilts the scales in favor of the plaintiff without allowing the defense to utilize all resources available to him.
Prepared by: Joselle Amahit CLI II
