TOWARDS A PROPER CHARACTERIZATION OF ALIBI:

PHILIPPINE VERSUS AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

Introduction
In criminal law, the accused is armed with a vast array of
defenses, both in substantive law, as well as in procedural law. In a
criminal case, courts will consider all the facts, circumstances and the
defenses raised by the accused and will only promulgate a judgement
of conviction if it finds that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged.1 What if, however, the only defense an
accused has available to him is Alibi, how must the court consider his
defense? What are the procedural means which must be followed
when making use of this defense?

Sadly, the law currently views alibi rather simplistically as the

“weakest defense.”2 Jurisprudence has been very consistent with this,
as it has ruled in case after case that: “alibi is an inherently weak
defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable.”3

In terms of procedure, no rules currently exist for its appreciation

with the exception of the above pronouncements in case law.4 In the
Philippines, alibi is not considered a positive defense, neither is it
considered rebuttal evidence. This characterization will have
significant implications as to the appreciation of alibi during trial, and
which may prejudice an otherwise innocent accused who chooses to
raise this defense.

In contrast, alibi in the United States is appreciated very

differently from the Philippines. There is a proper procedure for the
raising of this specific defense. Furthermore, US courts characterize
alibi as more or less a “complete defense.”

In this study, the author will look at the history of the alibi
defense in the Philippines, and show the evolution of the defense, or
lack thereof. This will be followed by a discussion of how the alibi
defense is characterized in the Philippines and America. Lastly, he will
discuss American procedure when raising the alibi defense and how
juries are instructed to appreciate an alibi with a view to how the

1 REV. RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 133, sec. 2

2 MODESTO A. TICMAN, JR., UPDATES IN CRIMINAL LAW, 4 (2016)
3 People vs. Veloso, 690 SCRA 586 (2013); People vs. Banzuela, 712 SCRA 735

(2013);
4 Rodolfo Pompeyo Cabrillas, Annotation, The Theory of Alibi, 54 SCRA 369 (1973).

Page 1 of 7
Supreme Court or the Legislature may be able to amend the rules on
alibi in the future.

History of Alibi in the Philippines

According to the research of Bautista,5 the first criminal case in
which the alibi defense was ever raised in the Philippines was U.S. vs.
Cardona,6 however, in that case, the Supreme Court found that defense
“unimportant” because the location of defendant on the date the crime
allegedly occurred was not a “material ingredient” for the offense.7
However, since this first case, the alibi in jurisprudence developed.

It was in U.S. vs. Mabanag8 where the Supreme Court first

explained the doctrine that alibi cannot prevail over positive
testimony. Specifically, the Supreme Court said: “The evidence
produced by the defendant to prove an alibi is not sufficient to
overcome the positive testimony of two persons who identified him as
the author of the assault in question.” A few months later, in U.S. vs.
Santiago, the court expounded on the weakness of the alibi defense
namely that: “having regard to the facility with which such a defense
may be fabricated, we cannot attach to the evidence sufficient weight
to bring into doubt the positive and in all respects satisfactory evidence
of the prosecution connecting the defendants with the crime.”9
Furthermore, as to evidentiary weight, the Court has also held that the
defense of alibi should not be given credence if the corroboration
comes from close relatives or friends of the accused and not from
disinterested persons. In People v. Sumalinog, the court very specifically
explained that kinship or closeness does not automatically discredit a
witness, however “if that witness testifies to support the specific
defense of alibi, courts view his testimony with skepticism.”10 The
Court explained very early on that this is due to the fact that alibi is
very easily fabricated and that it is very easy for the accused to have
close friends or relatives corroborate his story.11 Since these early
decisions, Philippine Courts have more or less appreciated the alibi the
same way.

5 MELISSA A. BAUTISTA, Buying the Alibi: Challenging the Jurisprudential Doctrine

that Alibi is the Weakest Defense, UNPUBLISHED THESIS, ATENEO DE MANILA LAW
SCHOOL (2010)
6 1 Phil. 381 (1902)
7 Ibid p. 383
8 1 Phil. 441 (1902), p. 442
9 U.S. vs. Santiago, 1 Phil 545 (1902), p. 547
10 People vs. Sumalinong, G.R. No. 128387, February 5, 2004, 422 SCRA 55 (2004)
11 U.S. vs. De Jesus, 2 Phil. 514 (1902), p. 525

Page 2 of 7
 In 2010, the case of Lejano vs. People12 was decided. This case was
about the sensational Vizconde massacre wherein Hubert Webb, a
“scion of a rich, influential, and politically powerful family,13” was
accused of having committed the gruesome crime. Among other
defenses, Webb raised the defense of alibi, claiming that he was in
America at the time the massacre occurred. In support of this claim, he
presented witness as well as object and documentary evidence such as
his travel preparations, his despedida party, his immigration checks and
he gave details of his sojourn and purchases made in the US.14 In spite
of this evidence, the lower courts held that the alibi defense is weak
and would not prevail over the positive identification of the
prosecution’s star witness, the police asset, Jessica Alfaro.15 The
Supreme Court however, thought differently and exonerated Webb
based on the evidence he presented.

The success of the alibi defense in Lejano hinged on the fact that
the witness who gave positive testimony of Hubert Webb as being one
of the authors of the massacre was not credible because of her history
as a police asset and as a “stool pigeon” who only came forward 4
years after the massacre,16 as well as the strength of Webb’s
documentary evidence to prove that he was out of the country.
However, while Lejano threatened to buck the prevailing doctrine of
the alibi defense, the result nevertheless seems disappointing because
the court did not take the opportunity to “judicially legislate”
procedural rules for alibi defenses, in spite of a good opportunity to do
so. However, the court did take the opportunity to remind the lower
courts to:

[N]ot all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed,

if the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but
denial and alibi. So how can such accused penetrate a mind that has
been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a defense of
alibi is a hangman’s noose in the face of a witness positively
swearing, “I saw him do it.”? Most judges believe that such assertion
automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to fabricate. This quick
stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how else can the
truth that the accused is really innocent have any chance of
prevailing over such a stone-cast tenet?

There is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind. He must
guard against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a

12 638 SCRA 104, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010

13 Ibid p. 248
14 Ibid pp. 145-149
15 Ibid p. 149
16 Ibid p. 133

Page 3 of 7
 desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. 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.17

The Supreme Court further declared that the quantum of evidence

required by the lower courts in order to prove the element of physical
impossibility of being at the crime scene in the Lejano case is so high,
such that the only acceptable alibi in the Philippines would be the
passage of the accused “into the next life,” and because of this, the
Court “must abandon this unjust and inhuman paradigm.”18
However, several years after this pronouncement, meaningful change
in the jurisprudence or procedure has yet to occur because the
prevailing doctrine remains that alibi is the weakest defense.

How Alibi is Characterized in the Philippines

Although alibi is a very common defense in Philippine courts, it
is confounding to note that no provision exists in our Rules of Court
that deals with this defense, criteria is limited to jurisprudence,19 and
apparently, no doctrine is more jurisprudentially settled in the
Philippines than that alibi is “the weakest defense,”20 or variations of
this theme, such as alibi being “inherently weak,” and which must be
“brushed aside” when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively
ascertained the identity of the accused.21

The author believes that part of the problem has to do with the
fact that the prosecution and the Courts have no guidance with respect
to procedure, as well as how to appreciate the defense. In the first case,
alibi is considered a mere “negative defense.”22 Compounding the
problem, aside from being defined as a defense, alibi is also defined as
a form of “evidence,”23 and is thus also considered a factual issue with

17 Ibid p. 149-150
18 Ibid p. 152
19 Supra, Note 4.
20 But see People vs. Sumalinong, Supra Note 10 p.63, where the Supreme Court

stated that alibi is: “concededly the weakest defense.”

21 People vs. Manigo, 714 SCRA 551; People vs. Las Piñas, 730 SCRA 571; People

vs. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA 687 (2014) ; People vs.
Estonilo, G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014, 738 SCRA 204 (2014).
22 Alicia Gonzales-Decano, Annotation, Denial and Alibi, 84 Phil Rep. Annot. 945,

951.
23 Ibid p. 946

Page 4 of 7
its own weight and sufficiency of proof.24 In some early cases, the
court held that it should be proven by probable evidence,25 while in
many later cases, it was held that it should be proven by positive, clear
and convincing evidence.26

In making an alibi defense, an accused more or less admits that

a crime has taken place, however, the accused was simply too far away
from the scene of the crime that he could not have committed it.27 The
fact that an accused admits the act or omission charged, makes alibi
partake of the characteristics of an affirmative defense. However,
raising this defense does not have the effect of reversing trial as
provided for in Section 11, Rule 119 which provides that the
Prosecution shall be the first to present evidence to prove the charge,
followed by the accused who shall present evidence on his defense,
except when: “When the accused admits the act or omission charged
in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the
order of trial may be modified.”28

As mentioned, instead of treating alibi as an affirmative defense,

the courts instead treat it as a negative defense, that is, the accused is
merely allowed to deny the State’s claim. A desirable side-effect of this
characterization is that if an accused’s alibi defense does not convince
the court of his innocence, the failure of the defense alone will not
convict the accused.29

How Alibi is Characterized in the United States

In stark contrast to Philippine jurisprudential rules on alibi,
American jurisprudence has been much more accommodating on
accused interposing this defense. US courts have declared that alibi,
“if established, constitutes a complete, legitimate, and effective
defense and precludes the possibility of guilt.30”

24 People vs. Apa-ap, Jr. G.R. No. 110993, August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA 468 (1994);
People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 21
25 U.S. vs. Oxiles 29 Phil. 587 (1915) 592 G.R. No. L-9999; February 23, 1915 , People

vs. Cinco 67 Phil. 196 (1939) 199 G.R. No. L-46144; April 5, 1939, People vs. De
Guzman 70 Phil. 23 (1940) 26 G.R. No. 47228; June 17, 1940,
26 Supra Note 2 p. 5
27 Supra Note 20 p.946
28 2000 REV. RULES OF CRIM. PROC., Rule 119, sec. 11
29 Supra Note 4 p.370
30 21 Am Jur 2d § 220

Page 5 of 7
 The question thus arises if whether or not alibi may be considered
an affirmative defense in the US. In the United States, as in the
Philippines, there is no definite pronouncement as to whether alibi is
an affirmative defense or not as some American authorities consider
alibi as merely a “rebuttal” defense while others consider it an
affirmative defense which the accused has the burden of establishing.31
Since it is neither an affirmative or rebuttal defense, alibi should
simply be characterized as a “complete and direct denial of the state’s
case,”32 the distinction being that that an affirmative defense admits
the act charged but seeks to justify the act or exempt or mitigate
liability, while an alibi defense essentially denies that the accused
committed the act charged.33 In the U.S., evidence to prove an alibi is
not regarded as an attempt to prove an independent, affirmative
defense. The prosecution still has the burden of proving the accused’s
presence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused may, by any
legitimate evidence, rebut or disprove this essential factor in the case
for the prosecution.34

Jury Instructions
In the U.S., criminal cases are tried before juries, hence Judges
are tasked with giving instructions to juries as to the “burden of proof”
required of the prosecution and of the accused as to their respective
defenses. With regards to alibi however, Judges would often omit the
phrase “burden of proof” as to the existence of an alibi.35 and instead
of focusing the attention of the jury on the question whether the alibi
has been proved the Court instead regards evidence to prove an alibi
in the same light as any other evidence tending to disprove guilt or to
disprove the case for the prosecution, with the cumulative effect of
producing reasonable doubt on the entire case, which may lead to an
acquittal.36 Indeed, it has been held that jury instructions which
indicate or even suggest that the accused satisfy a higher degree of
proof in establishing an alibi are improper,37 as is an instruction where
the jury may infer guilt from its disbelief of the accused’s alibi.38 This
is in stark contrast with the Philippine treatment of the defense which
requires the defense to prove the alibi by clear and convincing
evidence.39

31 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 951

32 Supra Note 30
33 Ibid
34 29 ALR 1127
35 Ibid
36 Ibid
37 75A Am. Jur. 2d Trial § 1065
38 Ibid
39 Supra Note 2 at 5

Page 6 of 7
Notice Requirement
Before an alibi defense reaches the trial stage however, some
States, and Courts at the Federal level,40 would require that the accused
give notice to the prosecution of their intention to rely on an alibi
defense and to specify the place where the accused claims to have been
when the crime was committed and the witnesses on whose testimony
they will rely on in establishing the defense.41 Non-compliance with
this requirement may bar the alibi.42 The purpose of this notice, in
view of the ease of fabricating an alibi, is to prevent last-minute
surprises on the prosecution and to enable it to make a full and
thorough investigation of the merits of the defense.43

Conclusion
The bias against the alibi defense in the Philippines is very
strong. More than one hundred years of jurisprudence stating that
alibi is the weakest defense, easy to fabricate and can never prevail
against prevail against positive identification of the accused can
potentially cause injustice against those falsely accused, but who chose
to raise alibi as a defense. Part of the reason for this is the lack of
procedural rules which Courts must follow when an accused raises an
alibi, as well as an inherent bias and dependence on a presumption
that alibi was raised for self-serving purposes. The Philippine
Supreme Court and the Legislature should probably look to how their
American counterparts treat the alibi defense. In contrast to Philippine
rules, American jurisprudence has a much higher regard for this
defense and provide proper procedural guidance for their prosecutors
and their Courts both before and after a trial. Their requirement that
an alibi defense must be raised at the earliest possible moment likewise
confers credibility to the defense, as does the “relaxed” burden of proof
requirement for proving an alibi which is more consistent with the idea
that an alibi constitutes a complete, legitimate and effective defense.

40 Federal Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 12.1(a)

41 21 Am Jur 2d § 223
42 Ibid.
43 21 Am Jur § 224

Page 7 of 7