Alibi, although weak defense, should not be dismissed outright

Juxtaposed against the prosecution's theory that the accused-appellants were the ones who did in the victim are the latter's denial and defense of alibi. While it has been held that alibi is indeed the "weakest" of all defenses, however, "judges should not at once look with disfavor at the defense of alibi. Alibi should be considered in the light of all the evidence oon record for it can tilt the scales of justice in favor of the accused." Stated differently. "(w)hen an accused puts up the defense of alibi, the courts should not at once have a mental prejudice against him. For, taken in the light of all the evidence on record, it may be sufficient to acquit him." It is precisely when the prosecution's cause is weak, as in this instance, that the defense of alibi interposed by the accused-appellants "assumes importance and becomes crucial in negating xxx criminal liability." The accused-appellants both claim that in the wee hours of the night when the victim was slain, they were sleeping in their respective dwellings and were awakened only by the sound of the gunfire. Prior thereto, the accused contend that they had dinner with their kin and Enemesio Abellanosa in particular claims having watched betamax after dinner and before turning in for the night. These are all actuations not contrary to but in accord with ordinary human expereince. Although alibi is weak, it should not be outright dismissed as false. The appellants' alibi in fact appears to be the truth when viewed in the light of the inherent weaknesses of the prosecution's case. [G.R. No. 121195. November 27, 1996]