PEOPLE vs. LARRAÑAGA2005 Jul 21; G.R. Nos. 138874-75
PER CURIAM
Appellants vigorously contend that we should not have sustained
Rusia's
testimony hook, line and sinker, owing to his tainted record and
reputation.However, it must be stressed that Rusia's testimony was
not viewed inisolation. In giving credence to Rusia's testimony,
the trial court took intoconsideration the physical evidence and
the corroborative testimonies ofother witnesses. Thus, we nd no
reason why we should not uphold the trialcourt's ndings.
!e reiterate our pronouncement in our "ecision that what makes
Rusia'stestimony worthy of belief is its striking compatibility
with the physicalevidence. #hysical evidence is one of the highest
degrees of proof. Itspeaks more elo$uently than all witnesses put
together.
%ettled is the rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak
and crumbles inthe light of positive declarations of truthful
witnesses who testied ona&rmative matters. eing evidence that
is negative in nature and self(serving, it cannot attain more
credibility than the testimonies of prosecutionwitnesses who
testify on clear and positive evidence. )n top of its
inherentweakness, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it
is corroboratedonly by relatives or close friends of the
accused.
