Alibi is considered the weakest defense according to counsel, as it cannot withstand positive witness identification and requires credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses to succeed. In People vs. Lumaho, the Supreme Court emphasized how alibi is an inherently weak defense that is easy to fabricate and unreliable, noting that a friend of the accused would not be considered a disinterested witness providing credible corroboration to help the alibi prosper.
Alibi is considered the weakest defense according to counsel, as it cannot withstand positive witness identification and requires credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses to succeed. In People vs. Lumaho, the Supreme Court emphasized how alibi is an inherently weak defense that is easy to fabricate and unreliable, noting that a friend of the accused would not be considered a disinterested witness providing credible corroboration to help the alibi prosper.
Alibi is considered the weakest defense according to counsel, as it cannot withstand positive witness identification and requires credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses to succeed. In People vs. Lumaho, the Supreme Court emphasized how alibi is an inherently weak defense that is easy to fabricate and unreliable, noting that a friend of the accused would not be considered a disinterested witness providing credible corroboration to help the alibi prosper.
As advised by my counsel, alibi is considered as the weakest
defense. It cannot stand against positive identification of witnesses. In the case of People vs. Lumaho1, the Supreme Court laid emphasis on alibi as defense, thus: “ Time and again, this Court has consistently held that alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable.
xxxx
For alibi to prosper, it must be supported
by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses. Evidently, Bennog is not a disinterested witness as he is a friend of the accused. x x x x.”