What is required for the defense of alibi to prosper?

The case of People vs. Obogne, G.R. No. 199740, 24 March 2014, sadly, is another case involving the rape of a mentally retarded minor.

After having been found guilty of simple rape, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court and questioned the admissibility of the victim's testimony, arguing that she is not a competent witness considering that she is mentally retarded or "incapable of making her perception known to others by reason of her mental incapacity".

The Supreme Court did not give credence to this argument, quoting with approval the decision of the trial court which found the victim fully capable of recalling and narrating what the accused did to her. The trial court also held that mental retardation per se does not affect a witness' credibility.

As to the defense of alibi (the accused claimed that he was at another place at the time of the incident), the Supreme Court again discarded this and claimed that his alibi does not satisfy the oft-cited standard for alibi to constitute a credible defense against any crime.

Specifically, the Supreme Court held that for alibi to prosper, "it must not only be shown that appellant was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also impossible for him to be present at the crime scene".

In this case, the place where the accused claimed he was at the time of the rape was found to be just four (4) kilometers, or an hour or less, away from the place where the rape occurred. Hence, it was not impossible for the accused to have raped the 12-year old victim.