Lawyerly

GR No. 185721

2011-09-28

PEREZ, J.

Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must necessarily fail.[61] Other than the testimony of appellant's common-law wife, whose testimony was rendered suspect because of her relationship with appellant, no other witness not related to appellant was ever presented to corroborate his claim.[62] Further, both prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant in open court to be the same person they caught red-handed selling and possessing shabu. Appellant's bare denial, therefore, cannot prevail over such positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.[63] In the same way, appellant's denial cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers in this case have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[64] Besides, this Court held in a catena of cases that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[65]

GR No. 179498

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. RUSTICO BARTOLINI Y AMPIS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Settled is the rule that when the issue is one (1) of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial courts considering that the latter are in a better position to decide the question as they have heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. It is for this reason that the findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case.[37]

GR No. 181036

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES

PEREZ, J.

In contrast, the evidence presented by the defense consisted mainly of bare denials and alibi. As the Court has oft pronounced, both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.[72] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not sufficient that appellant prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity when the crime was perpetrated.[73] Further, the defense of alibi may not prosper if it is established mainly by the accused themselves and their relatives like in this case and not by credible persons.[74]

GR No. 186379

2009-08-19

PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO LAZARO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Firstly, the exact date of the commission of rape is not material. In rape cases, the time of commission of the crime is not a material ingredient of the offense.[33] In this connection, this Court also ruled that in rape cases, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times, and manner in which they were violated. In the same vein, to be material, discrepancies in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts that are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to mere details that are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of its commission in a case of rape.[34]

GR No. 170813

2008-04-16

B.F. METAL v. SPS. ROLANDO M. LOMOTAN AND LINAFLOR LOMOTAN AND RICO UMUYON

TINGA, J,

In People v. Gopio,[12] the Court allowed the reimbursement of only the laboratory fee that was duly receipted as "the rest of the documents, which the prosecution presented to prove the actual expenses incurred by the victim, were merely a doctor's prescription and a handwritten list of food expenses."[13] In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[14] the Court particularly disallowed the award of actual damages, considering that the actual damages suffered by private respondents therein were based only on a job estimate and a photo showing the damage to the truck and no competent proof on the specific amounts of actual damages suffered was presented.

GR NO. 166546

2006-09-26

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant's allegation that it was his wife who influenced the victim to file a complaint against him because she is having an affair with another man, is incredible and unfounded. Appellant testified that he saw his wife twice in the company of another man in a public place but never bothered to ask her about it. If he really suspected that his wife was having an affair, the natural thing for him to do was to ask her who the man she was with is. This, he did not do, and he just let his alleged discovery pass. What made this alleged discovery, which is appellant's ground for saying that his wife is having an affair, harder to believe is that same allegedly happened a good ten years prior to the occurrence of the rape. No mother would subject her own daughter, a child of tender years, to the rigors and the humiliation of a public trial for rape if she was not driven by an honest desire to have her daughter's transgressor punished accordingly.[35]

GR Nos. 144080-81

2004-01-26

PEOPLE v. ARSENIO DE JESUS

QUISUMBING, J.

In reviewing rape cases, this Court observes the following guiding principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[40] These guidelines understandably assume that the victim of the rape is herself the complaining witness and that she could testify intelligently such that her testimony could normally be understood by the trial court.

GR No. 151783

2003-07-08

VICTORINO SAVELLANO v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES

PANGANIBAN, J.

In the present case, we must consider that petitioners suffered the inconveniences of having to wake up early after a bad night and having to miss breakfast; as well as the fact that they were business class passengers. They paid more for better service; thus, rushing them and making them miss their small comforts was not a trivial thing. We also consider their social and official status. Victorino Savellano was a former mayor, regional trial court judge and chairman of the Commission on Elections. Virginia B. Savellano was the president of five rural banks, and Deogracias Savellano was then the incumbent vice governor of Ilocos Sur. Hence, it will be proper to grant one hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) as nominal damages[28] to each of them, in order to vindicate and recognize their right[29] to be notified and consulted before their contracted stopping place was changed.

GR No. 135936

2001-09-19

PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR

MENDOZA, J.

Third. The trial court correctly rejected the defense of alibi by accused-appellant. The testimonies of his witnesses, Norbie Carbon and Sofronio Mirador, cannot prevail over the positive identification by Carmelita Nacario of accused-appellant as her husband's attacker.[30] Considering that alibis are easy to fabricate with the aid of relatives, friends, or even those not related to the accused, such a defense is generally regarded as weak and unreliable.[31] In this case, the defense of alibi was supported by nothing more than the testimonies of accused-appellant's brother, Sofronio Mirador, and Norbie Carbon, an employee of Pedro Mirador, another brother of accused-appellant. As this Court held: "Alibi becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by relatives and friends who may then not be impartial witnesses."[32] In contrast, the positive and categorical identification by the victim's wife of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime was buttressed by the fact that no ill motive to testify falsely can be ascribed on her. The defense of alibi must be rejected when the accused's identity is satisfactorily and categorically established by an eyewitness to the offense who has no ill motive to testify falsely against him.[33] Indeed, accused-appellant admitted that the victim's wife had no reason to testify falsely against him since they had a good relationship.[34] Settled is the rule that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder.[35]

GR No. 139180

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA

MENDOZA, J.

Accused-appellant's sister, Concepcion Sayo, testified that accused-appellant lived with her family in Bulacan at the time of the rape. No other witness not related to accused-appellant, however, was called to corroborate her claim. We have already held that the defense of alibi cannot prosper if it is established mainly by the accused and his relatives, and not by credible persons. It is not improbable that these witnesses would freely perjure themselves for the sake of their loved ones.[66] Accused-appellant's defense thus fails to convince this Court.

GR No. 138805

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO MACEDA

MENDOZA, J.

Alibi as a means of defense is weak when not substantiated by the testimony of a credible witness. Courts have always looked upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and have always received it with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated. Alibi as basis for acquittal must be established with clear and convincing evidence. The accused must convincingly demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. And, where accused was positively identified by the victim herself who harbored no ill motive against the rapist, as in this case, the defense of alibi must fail.[15] In the case at hand, accused-appellant failed to substantiate his defense of alibi. The testimonies of his witnesses, Owen and Rosa, are rendered suspect because his relationship to them makes it likely that they would freely perjure themselves for his sake. The defense of alibi may not prosper if it is established mainly by the accused himself and his relatives, and not by credible persons.[16] Correctly then did the trial court state:Against this overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, the accused and witnesses could only offer denials and the supposed impossibility of his having committed the crime because the keys to the house were kept by the sister and that he could not have gone out without her knowing it.[17] Second. Contrary to the claim of accused-appellant, the prosecution evidence clearly shows that he had carnal knowledge of complainant Maribeth Quinto.

	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN PEREZ, J.
Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must necessarily fail.[61] Other than the testimony of appellant's common-law wife, whose testimony was rendered suspect because of her relationship with appellant, no other witness not related to appellant was ever presented to corroborate his claim.[62] Further, both prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant in open court to be the same person they caught red-handed selling and possessing shabu. Appellant's bare denial, therefore, cannot prevail over such positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.[63] In the same way, appellant's denial cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers in this case have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[64] Besides, this Court held in a catena of cases that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[65]
	GR No. 179498 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. RUSTICO BARTOLINI Y AMPIS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Settled is the rule that when the issue is one (1) of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial courts considering that the latter are in a better position to decide the question as they have heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. It is for this reason that the findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case.[37]
	GR No. 181036 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES PEREZ, J.
In contrast, the evidence presented by the defense consisted mainly of bare denials and alibi. As the Court has oft pronounced, both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.[72] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not sufficient that appellant prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity when the crime was perpetrated.[73] Further, the defense of alibi may not prosper if it is established mainly by the accused themselves and their relatives like in this case and not by credible persons.[74]
	GR No. 186379 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO LAZARO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Firstly, the exact date of the commission of rape is not material. In rape cases, the time of commission of the crime is not a material ingredient of the offense.[33] In this connection, this Court also ruled that in rape cases, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times, and manner in which they were violated. In the same vein, to be material, discrepancies in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts that are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to mere details that are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of its commission in a case of rape.[34]
	GR No. 170813 2008-04-16	B.F. METAL v. SPS. ROLANDO M. LOMOTAN AND LINAFLOR LOMOTAN AND RICO UMUYON TINGA, J,
In People v. Gopio,[12] the Court allowed the reimbursement of only the laboratory fee that was duly receipted as "the rest of the documents, which the prosecution presented to prove the actual expenses incurred by the victim, were merely a doctor's prescription and a handwritten list of food expenses."[13] In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[14] the Court particularly disallowed the award of actual damages, considering that the actual damages suffered by private respondents therein were based only on a job estimate and a photo showing the damage to the truck and no competent proof on the specific amounts of actual damages suffered was presented.
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant's allegation that it was his wife who influenced the victim to file a complaint against him because she is having an affair with another man, is incredible and unfounded. Appellant testified that he saw his wife twice in the company of another man in a public place but never bothered to ask her about it. If he really suspected that his wife was having an affair, the natural thing for him to do was to ask her who the man she was with is. This, he did not do, and he just let his alleged discovery pass. What made this alleged discovery, which is appellant's ground for saying that his wife is having an affair, harder to believe is that same allegedly happened a good ten years prior to the occurrence of the rape. No mother would subject her own daughter, a child of tender years, to the rigors and the humiliation of a public trial for rape if she was not driven by an honest desire to have her daughter's transgressor punished accordingly.[35]
	GR Nos. 144080-81 2004-01-26	PEOPLE v. ARSENIO DE JESUS QUISUMBING, J.
In reviewing rape cases, this Court observes the following guiding principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[40] These guidelines understandably assume that the victim of the rape is herself the complaining witness and that she could testify intelligently such that her testimony could normally be understood by the trial court.
	GR No. 151783 2003-07-08	VICTORINO SAVELLANO v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES PANGANIBAN, J.
In the present case, we must consider that petitioners suffered the inconveniences of having to wake up early after a bad night and having to miss breakfast; as well as the fact that they were business class passengers. They paid more for better service; thus, rushing them and making them miss their small comforts was not a trivial thing. We also consider their social and official status. Victorino Savellano was a former mayor, regional trial court judge and chairman of the Commission on Elections. Virginia B. Savellano was the president of five rural banks, and Deogracias Savellano was then the incumbent vice governor of Ilocos Sur. Hence, it will be proper to grant one hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) as nominal damages[28] to each of them, in order to vindicate and recognize their right[29] to be notified and consulted before their contracted stopping place was changed.
	GR No. 135936 2001-09-19	PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR MENDOZA, J.
Third. The trial court correctly rejected the defense of alibi by accused-appellant. The testimonies of his witnesses, Norbie Carbon and Sofronio Mirador, cannot prevail over the positive identification by Carmelita Nacario of accused-appellant as her husband's attacker.[30] Considering that alibis are easy to fabricate with the aid of relatives, friends, or even those not related to the accused, such a defense is generally regarded as weak and unreliable.[31] In this case, the defense of alibi was supported by nothing more than the testimonies of accused-appellant's brother, Sofronio Mirador, and Norbie Carbon, an employee of Pedro Mirador, another brother of accused-appellant. As this Court held: "Alibi becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by relatives and friends who may then not be impartial witnesses."[32] In contrast, the positive and categorical identification by the victim's wife of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime was buttressed by the fact that no ill motive to testify falsely can be ascribed on her. The defense of alibi must be rejected when the accused's identity is satisfactorily and categorically established by an eyewitness to the offense who has no ill motive to testify falsely against him.[33] Indeed, accused-appellant admitted that the victim's wife had no reason to testify falsely against him since they had a good relationship.[34] Settled is the rule that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder.[35]
	GR No. 139180 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA MENDOZA, J.
Accused-appellant's sister, Concepcion Sayo, testified that accused-appellant lived with her family in Bulacan at the time of the rape. No other witness not related to accused-appellant, however, was called to corroborate her claim. We have already held that the defense of alibi cannot prosper if it is established mainly by the accused and his relatives, and not by credible persons. It is not improbable that these witnesses would freely perjure themselves for the sake of their loved ones.[66] Accused-appellant's defense thus fails to convince this Court.
	GR No. 138805 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO MACEDA MENDOZA, J.
Alibi as a means of defense is weak when not substantiated by the testimony of a credible witness. Courts have always looked upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and have always received it with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated. Alibi as basis for acquittal must be established with clear and convincing evidence. The accused must convincingly demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. And, where accused was positively identified by the victim herself who harbored no ill motive against the rapist, as in this case, the defense of alibi must fail.[15] In the case at hand, accused-appellant failed to substantiate his defense of alibi. The testimonies of his witnesses, Owen and Rosa, are rendered suspect because his relationship to them makes it likely that they would freely perjure themselves for his sake. The defense of alibi may not prosper if it is established mainly by the accused himself and his relatives, and not by credible persons.[16] Correctly then did the trial court state:Against this overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, the accused and witnesses could only offer denials and the supposed impossibility of his having committed the crime because the keys to the house were kept by the sister and that he could not have gone out without her knowing it.[17] Second. Contrary to the claim of accused-appellant, the prosecution evidence clearly shows that he had carnal knowledge of complainant Maribeth Quinto.

PEOPLE v. AGUSTIN GOPIO