Within the trial court, we see various cases that seeks to prosecute those who are

claimed to be the malefactor of a crime. At the same time, there are those who accused
of crimes that they have not committed or are not involved in said crimes, hence they
resort to defend themselves, attempt to gain the weight of the decision of the judges.
That said, there are various ways of handling cases, a few of which is used are Alibis,
Positive Identification and as well as Forensic Science to determine evidences and
discover information that will be utilized to grant authorities closer to resolving cases
that are presented. As for the material that was analysed in the construction of this
paper, it will be ‘PROBLEM AREAS IN POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION, ALIBI AND
EMERGING ROLE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE’
which was written by Dr. Jose I. Dela Rama, Jr.
Comment about you Introduction:

Your initial introduction provides a good overview of the different elements involved in a criminal trial
and introduces the key themes of your paper. However, it could benefit from some refinement to
improve its clarity and focus.

In your introduction, you may want to consider expanding on some of the specific challenges and
complexities involved in the criminal justice system. You might also consider providing more context on
the importance of alibis, positive identification, and forensic science in criminal trials.

Suggestion for introduction:

The trial court serves as the stage for the resolution of various criminal cases. On one side, we have
those who stand accused of heinous crimes, while on the other, we have those who are wrongly
accused and fighting to prove their innocence. To arrive at a just decision, the court relies on a range of
approaches, including alibis, positive identification, and forensic science. In "PROBLEM AREAS IN
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION, ALIBI AND EMERGING ROLE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE APPRECIATION OF
EVIDENCE," Dr. Jose I. Dela Rama, Jr. delves into these three methods of gathering evidence and
explores their strengths and weaknesses. Through this paper, I gain insights into the challenges faced by
the court in evaluating evidence and appreciate the critical role played by forensic science in the
administration of justice.

Note: You can also decide whether you use this suggested introduction or not, but for me you should
revised you introduction to clarifies your focus of your paper
It was stated in the material details towards the use of Alibi within the premise of the
court. This is considered by the court as the weakest form of defense in cases, as a
result it is often rejected by the Court if it does not accompanied by evidence of sorts to
strengthen its foundation. As stated in the material “the attitude of the Court towards
alibi is consistently in disfavor”. This is due to the fact that these may be easily
fabricated by anyone if they wish to do so and may be a subject towards psychological
factors such as the bias towards individuals, affiliation, and difficulty to confirm the
truthfulness of the statements and inability of humans to at time perfectly recall events
and as well as what details that were seen. On top of being weak it is considered the
least effective if we are to consider if the accused is a subject to positive identification
by the prosecutor, when categorical, consistent and straightforward Positive
identificationis able to triumph above arguments, details and statements that may be
provided an Alibi.
Rate: 7.5/10
Comment:
Your paper presents a clear summary of the material and effectively conveys the key points about the
use of alibi in court. It provides a good understanding of the limitations and weaknesses of alibi as a
form of defense.

To further improve your paper, you might want to consider expanding on some of the potential
problems associated with alibis. For example, you could explore how alibis can be difficult to verify, and
how the veracity of an alibi can be influenced by factors such as the accused's memory, bias, and other
psychological factors. You could also discuss the role of prosecutors in challenging alibis and how the
court evaluates the credibility of alibis in the absence of corroborating evidence.
It is important however that in in certain instances, Alibi may be an acceptable form of
defense and may even be instrumental in progressing to solve a case. An example of
this form of defense being able to be effectively used are in cases of physical
impossibility, wherein the accused is to be assessed if it is physically possible to be in
the proximity of the area at the time the crime was committed. Depending on whether or
not the time, place and distances tie in to possibility in which the crime may be
committed by the accused, it is only then these details may or may not hold water and
be able to affirm what statements is to be listened to and is cohesive. In the case of
People v Mosquerra the distance of the appellant he claimed was at the Mina de Oro
Hotel was an estimate of one and a half to two hour from the scene of the crime or locus
delicti. Another case in People v Larranaga even the distance between Manila and
Cebu is enough to satisfy the Court as they were not convinced with innocence of the
appellant as they discussed that it would be just a mere hour to travel by plane which
grants possibility of the accused to travel between the two points of places.

Rate: 8.5/10
Comments:
Your context provides a balanced perspective on the use of alibi in court cases. It is important to
recognize that alibis may have some limited value as a form of defense, especially in cases of physical
impossibility where it can provide a compelling argument for the innocence of the accused. By citing
specific examples, you demonstrate how alibi can be effectively used in some cases.

To further improve your paper, you might want to consider discussing the challenges associated with
using alibi as a defense in cases of physical impossibility. For instance, the court must determine
whether the accused had the means and opportunity to commit the crime, and whether there are any
inconsistencies or contradictions in their statements. Additionally, it may be necessary to corroborate an
alibi with other forms of evidence, such as witness testimony or forensic analysis
Even with the occasional appreciation of the Court towards the defense utilizing alibi,
positive identification in many cases has a firm grasp in attracting weight and most of
the time is favoured by the Court over an alibi. This is due to the belief of proof of
identity which is said to be recognized by the prosecutor(s) as the perpetrator(s) of the
crime. Aside from this is the fact that even if the said witness may have not seen the
occurrence of the crime, it may still provide the possibility in order to identify suspects
which were at the scene of the crime. Positive identification is anchored firmly by the
perception of the Court towards the good faith of the witnesses, this alludes to these
individuals testifying due to an urge of benevolence to aid in serving justice. The Court
sides with these identifications even more if they perceive that there are slight
inconsistencies here and there as this would denote that the statements that is being
narrated by the witness has not been staged nor coached prior to presenting them. The
Court leans toward human tendencies or human nature in order to assess if what is
presented.

Rate: 9/10
Comment:
This context also provides a clear and concise explanation of the importance of positive identification in
court cases, especially when compared to alibi as a defense strategy. It also effectively explains the
Court's perspective on the matter and the factors that influence their decision-making.

One suggestion I would make is to provide specific examples of cases where positive identification
played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the trial. This can help illustrate the importance of
this form of evidence and further support your argument. Additionally, you may want to consider adding
some background information on the legal system or court procedures for readers who may not be
familiar with these concepts

“Overcoming such presumption would then require evidence to show why a prosecution
witness would falsely testify against an accused.” This entails that in order sever the
hold of positive identification and shift the burden from the defense to the prosecutor,
the defense should present evidence that would hold ground and that would convince
the Court that testimonies given by said witness is false. Nonetheless, if the details that
were given is reasonable. What matters is that the witness positively identifies the
accused. In making positive identifications however is still a subject to many factors and
may even cause discrepancies and failures in attempting to identify. At times, humans
may or may not be subjects to variables involving how they witnessed and perceived
the scene. This may involve the setting where locus delicti occurred, the court has to
account for the potential for the visibility of the crime by the witness which involves
factors such as distance and angles of which it has been seen in the perspective of the
individual. Moreover, details such as characteristics and details of what has happened
may be disoriented in relation to additional details that have been given by authorities,
other witnesses and the passage time may affect how witnesses may recall the events.
Supporting this claim is psychologist Elizabeth F. Lottus states that “”post-event
information can not only enhance existing memories, but also change a witness’
memory and even cause non-existent details to become incorporated into a previously
acquired memory”. In other words as the statement by Lottus suggests that not only
does information that is provided after the event able to improve the reflection of the
individual in remembering details of said event but it may also pave a way in order to
change the perception of the individual to said event which they have seen.
Rate:9/10
Comment:

It provides a good overview of the challenges involved in using alibi as a defense in criminal cases. The
paper highlights the weaknesses of alibi and how it can be easily fabricated, making it difficult for the
court to rely on it as a strong defense. The paper also discusses the importance of positive identification
in criminal cases and how it can be difficult to overcome.

Moreover, the paper provides an excellent point about how the court leans toward human tendencies
and nature in assessing presented evidence. This is a crucial point to keep in mind as it highlights the
importance of understanding how humans perceive and remember events. The paper also mentions the
role of post-event information and how it can affect a witness's memory and perception of events,
which is an essential point to consider when evaluating the credibility of a witness's testimony.

Overall, the reaction paper provides a well-rounded perspective on the complexities of using alibi and
positive identification in criminal cases, and it presents some excellent points to support its arguments.
However, it could benefit from some specific examples to illustrate some of the points made in the
paper. Additionally, the paper could be further strengthened by exploring the limitations and potential
biases associated with using positive identification in criminal cases

Suggestion:
"Overcoming such presumption would then require evidence to show why a prosecution witness
would falsely testify against an accused" highlights the burden of proof that the defense must
bear in order to challenge the positive identification of the accused by a witness. The defense
must present convincing evidence to the court that the witness's testimony is false and should not
be relied upon in determining the guilt of the accused.
Positive identification is a crucial factor in criminal cases, but it is not foolproof. Several factors
can influence the accuracy of witness testimony, such as the location of the crime scene, the
witness's perspective, and the passage of time. Additionally, the information provided by
authorities or other witnesses may influence the witness's memory and perception of the event.
Psychologist Elizabeth F. Lottus's statement that "post-event information can not only enhance
existing memories but also change a witness' memory and even cause non-existent details to
become incorporated into a previously acquired memory" emphasizes the vulnerability of human
memory and perception. It suggests that even seemingly credible witness testimony may be
unreliable due to the influence of external factors.

While positive identification is a significant factor in determining the guilt of an accused,

it is not infallible. The defense must present compelling evidence to challenge the
testimony of prosecution witnesses, especially in cases where witness testimony is the
primary evidence against the accused. The court must also consider the influence of
external factors on witness testimony, such as post-event information and the passage
of time, when evaluating the credibility of witness testimony.
Rate: 10/10
Comment:
The points raised in this reaction paper are accurate and well-presented. It emphasizes the importance
of presenting compelling evidence to challenge witness testimony, which is a crucial aspect of the
defense's strategy. The paper also rightly points out that witness testimony is not always infallible and
that the court must consider external factors that may affect the credibility of the witness testimony.
The paper could benefit from more specific examples to further illustrate these points. Overall, this is a
well-written and informative reaction paper.
Rate: Excellent