Lawyerly

GR No. 199713

2013-02-20

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Jaymart's alibi deserves little weight in the face of Edwin's categorical and positive identification of Jaymart as the one who shot Emmanuel, especially as there is no showing that Edwin was harboring any ill motive to falsely testify against Jaymart. Indeed, alibi is an inherently weak defense, and it becomes weaker in the face of the positive identification made by the prosecution witness.[18] It is likewise well-settled that where there is nothing to indicate that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[19]

GR No. 177361

2010-02-01

ARMANDO VIDAR v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The fact that the prosecution witnesses are related to the victim will not necessarily taint their testimonies. The weight of testimony of witnesses is neither impaired nor in any way affected by their relationship to the victim when there is no showing of improper motive on their part.[19] Relationship per se of a witness with the victim of the crime does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased.[20] These prosecution witnesses are the most aggrieved parties, being the victim's widow and sister. Thus, their motive of putting the killers behind bars cannot be considered improper.[21] It would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in avenging the crime to implicate persons other than the real culprit lest the guilty go unpunished.[22]

GR No. 186538

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

[50] Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006, 483 SCRA 649, 669-670.

GR No. 173791

2009-04-07

PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA

BRION, J.

The RTC and CA found the identification made by Romildo and Luther to be clear, categorical, and consistent.[76] We observed that in accepting the truth of the identification and the account of how the stabbing took place, the RTC and CA considered the witnesses' proximity to the victim and his assailants at the time of the stabbing - they were about three arms length away and 15 meters away, respectively; the well-lighted condition of the crime scene; and the familiarity of these eyewitnesses with the victim and his assailants - they were all residents of the same area. Similarly, we also note that no evidence was presented to establish that these eyewitnesses harbored any ill-will against Pablo and had no reason to fabricate their testimonies. The weight of jurisprudence is to accept these kinds of testimonies as true for being consistent with the natural order of events, human nature and the presumption of good faith.[77]

GR No. 175829

2009-03-20

PEOPLE v. DOLORICO GUILLERA Y ALGORDO

QUISUMBING, J.

Neither did Geraldine's relationship with Enrique impair her credibility since it is a basic precept that relationship per se of a witness with the victim does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased. Close or blood relationship alone does not, by itself, impair a witness' credibility.[19] On the contrary, it could even strengthen the witness' credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. Their natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating a person other than the true offender.[20]

GR No. 172326

2009-01-19

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PASCUAL Y ILDEFONSO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the absence of evidence that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[35]

GR No. 174371

2008-12-11

PEOPLE v. WARREN DELA CRUZ Y FRANCISCO

REYES, R.T., J.

x x x is intrinsically a weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserve more credence and evidentiary weight.[46] TheCourtreaffirmedthisdoctrine inVelasco v. People,[47] where it was held that "[t]o be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.Otherwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit."

GR No. 173248

2008-11-03

PEOPLE v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO

BRION, J.

To be believed, denial must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, it is purely self-serving.[30] Alibi, on the other hand, is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[31] For the appellant's defense of alibi to prosper, he should have proven that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. By physical impossibility we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was committed.[32]

GR No. 182192

2008-10-29

PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[52] The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. Two essential elements are required in order that treachery can be appreciated: (1) The employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party who has, thus, no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of execution.[53]

GR No. 177571

2008-09-29

PEOPLE v. DEAN MARTIN Y SARVIDA

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant Tanoan was positively identified by two eyewitnesses: the victim's wife, Dolores, and the victim's co-driver, Sergio. In her testimony, Dolores recounted in a straightforward and clear manner how the stabbing incident took place. She described with certainty how the assailant looked like and pointed to Tanoan as that person. As correctly observed by the appellate court, Tanoan could not deny that Dolores saw him "because [he] was only a meter away from [her] and the street was illuminated by a light bulb in an electric post only [four] meters away from the jeepney."[12] Dolores remembered her husband's assailant so well that when she chanced upon him again within the vicinity of the crime scene, she immediately reported the matter to her brother-in-law, who contacted the police so that he could be arrested. Her identification of Tanoan as the culprit was established in a police line-up and confirmed consistently during her direct and cross examinations. It must be noted that relatives of a victim of a crime have a natural knack for remembering the face of the assailant and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim.[13] Certainly, Dolores' interest for securing the conviction of her husband's assailant would dissuade her from implicating a person other than the real culprit.[14]

GR No. 177276

2008-08-20

GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that would have brought about death.[26] By commencing their criminal design by overt acts but failing to perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of some cause other than their own desistance, petitioner and his cohorts committed an attempted felony.In the instant case the three assailants already commenced their attack with a manifest intent to kill by punching Rommel countless times and when one of the malefactors stabbed him, but failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, the agility of the victim. Rommel sustained three stab wounds which were characterized by the prosecution witness Dr. Mario Ferdinand Garcia as non-penetrating or non-life-threatening wounds.

GR No. 172091

2008-03-31

PEOPLE v. MOISES OLIVA ORBITA

VELASCO JR., J.

Weighed against the positive testimony of the complaining witness, accused-appellant's denial, unsubstantiated by convincing evidence, loses evidentiary value.[17]

GR No. 178541

2008-03-27

PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused in the crime are definitely shown, particularly when we consider that it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[47] Where a reliable eyewitness has fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial to the successful prosecution of a criminal case.[48] It is obvious from the records that Aleine positively and categorically identified appellant as the person who shot Ramon during the incident. Her testimony was corroborated on relevant points by Edwin and Rey.

GR NO. 176349

2007-07-10

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Compared with the factual backdrop painted by prosecution witnesses, appellant's version of what transpired only generates disbelief. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[22] To be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability;[23] whereas for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[24] In the instant case, it was not shown that it was physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Moreover, nobody corroborated his alibi.

GR NO. 160540

2007-03-22

VICIA D. PASCUAL v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it having been proven beyond reasonable [doubt] the guilt of [petitioner] VICIA DAVID PASCUAL in Criminal Case No. 98-1015, for the crime of estafa under [Article 315,] paragraph 1 [b], as principal, with no aggravating and mitigating circumstances, she is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison term penalty of four [4] years two [2] months of prision correcional in its medium period, as minimum to twenty [20] years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum; to indemnify complainant Assumption College Parents Council the amount of P578,208.96 with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the information until fully paid; and to pay the costs.

GR NO. 172966

2007-02-08

PEOPLE v. EUGENIO PILIIN Y GARCIA

TINGA, J.

The trial court properly appreciated the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in their execution, without risk to himself arising from the defenses which the offended party might make.[21] To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.[22] The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[23] Appellant's wife witnessed the incident from its inception up to its consummation. She testified: Q- Madam Witness, at about 7:20 in the evening of November 19, 1997, do you recall where were you then? A- I was inside our house and I went out of the house to open our gate, Sir.

GR NO. 173022

2007-01-23

PEOPLE v. DARIUS RODRIGO Y FAJARDO

TINGA, J.

Plata's effort to impute ill-motive on the part of de la Cruz to falsely testify against him does not hold water. Even granting that De la Cruz may have an axe to grind is of no moment. Plata was positively identified by Oliver. His statement was corroborated by dela Cruz. Motive becomes essential only when the identity of the culprit is in doubt[34] and not when he is positively identified by a credible witness.

GR NO. 170473

2006-10-12

PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS

TINGA, J.

It is well-settled that alibi is one of the weakest defenses because it is easily fabricated.[37] For alibi to prosper, the appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[38] In the instant case, it was established that the house of the uncle of appellant, where he purportedly was at the time of the commission of the crime, was only 10 to 15 minutes away from the place of the incident.[39] Thus, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime when it happened, rendering his defense of alibi unworthy of credit. As correctly observed by the appellate court: Appellant miserably failed to prove the requisite impossibility of committing the crime of rape.

	GR No. 199713 2013-02-20	PEOPLE v. MARK JOSEPH ZAPUIZ Y RAMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jaymart's alibi deserves little weight in the face of Edwin's categorical and positive identification of Jaymart as the one who shot Emmanuel, especially as there is no showing that Edwin was harboring any ill motive to falsely testify against Jaymart. Indeed, alibi is an inherently weak defense, and it becomes weaker in the face of the positive identification made by the prosecution witness.[18] It is likewise well-settled that where there is nothing to indicate that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[19]
	GR No. 177361 2010-02-01	ARMANDO VIDAR v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The fact that the prosecution witnesses are related to the victim will not necessarily taint their testimonies. The weight of testimony of witnesses is neither impaired nor in any way affected by their relationship to the victim when there is no showing of improper motive on their part.[19] Relationship per se of a witness with the victim of the crime does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased.[20] These prosecution witnesses are the most aggrieved parties, being the victim's widow and sister. Thus, their motive of putting the killers behind bars cannot be considered improper.[21] It would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in avenging the crime to implicate persons other than the real culprit lest the guilty go unpunished.[22]
	GR No. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
[50] Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006, 483 SCRA 649, 669-670.
	GR No. 173791 2009-04-07	PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA BRION, J.
The RTC and CA found the identification made by Romildo and Luther to be clear, categorical, and consistent.[76] We observed that in accepting the truth of the identification and the account of how the stabbing took place, the RTC and CA considered the witnesses' proximity to the victim and his assailants at the time of the stabbing - they were about three arms length away and 15 meters away, respectively; the well-lighted condition of the crime scene; and the familiarity of these eyewitnesses with the victim and his assailants - they were all residents of the same area. Similarly, we also note that no evidence was presented to establish that these eyewitnesses harbored any ill-will against Pablo and had no reason to fabricate their testimonies. The weight of jurisprudence is to accept these kinds of testimonies as true for being consistent with the natural order of events, human nature and the presumption of good faith.[77]
	GR No. 175829 2009-03-20	PEOPLE v. DOLORICO GUILLERA Y ALGORDO QUISUMBING, J.
Neither did Geraldine's relationship with Enrique impair her credibility since it is a basic precept that relationship per se of a witness with the victim does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased. Close or blood relationship alone does not, by itself, impair a witness' credibility.[19] On the contrary, it could even strengthen the witness' credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. Their natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating a person other than the true offender.[20]
	GR No. 172326 2009-01-19	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PASCUAL Y ILDEFONSO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the absence of evidence that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[35]
	GR No. 174371 2008-12-11	PEOPLE v. WARREN DELA CRUZ Y FRANCISCO REYES, R.T., J.
x x x is intrinsically a weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserve more credence and evidentiary weight.[46] TheCourtreaffirmedthisdoctrine inVelasco v. People,[47] where it was held that "[t]o be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.Otherwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit."
	GR No. 173248 2008-11-03	PEOPLE v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO BRION, J.
To be believed, denial must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, it is purely self-serving.[30] Alibi, on the other hand, is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[31] For the appellant's defense of alibi to prosper, he should have proven that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. By physical impossibility we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was committed.[32]
	GR No. 182192 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[52] The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. Two essential elements are required in order that treachery can be appreciated: (1) The employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party who has, thus, no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of execution.[53]
	GR No. 177571 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. DEAN MARTIN Y SARVIDA VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant Tanoan was positively identified by two eyewitnesses: the victim's wife, Dolores, and the victim's co-driver, Sergio. In her testimony, Dolores recounted in a straightforward and clear manner how the stabbing incident took place. She described with certainty how the assailant looked like and pointed to Tanoan as that person. As correctly observed by the appellate court, Tanoan could not deny that Dolores saw him "because [he] was only a meter away from [her] and the street was illuminated by a light bulb in an electric post only [four] meters away from the jeepney."[12] Dolores remembered her husband's assailant so well that when she chanced upon him again within the vicinity of the crime scene, she immediately reported the matter to her brother-in-law, who contacted the police so that he could be arrested. Her identification of Tanoan as the culprit was established in a police line-up and confirmed consistently during her direct and cross examinations. It must be noted that relatives of a victim of a crime have a natural knack for remembering the face of the assailant and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim.[13] Certainly, Dolores' interest for securing the conviction of her husband's assailant would dissuade her from implicating a person other than the real culprit.[14]
	GR No. 177276 2008-08-20	GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that would have brought about death.[26] By commencing their criminal design by overt acts but failing to perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of some cause other than their own desistance, petitioner and his cohorts committed an attempted felony.In the instant case the three assailants already commenced their attack with a manifest intent to kill by punching Rommel countless times and when one of the malefactors stabbed him, but failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, the agility of the victim. Rommel sustained three stab wounds which were characterized by the prosecution witness Dr. Mario Ferdinand Garcia as non-penetrating or non-life-threatening wounds.
	GR No. 172091 2008-03-31	PEOPLE v. MOISES OLIVA ORBITA VELASCO JR., J.
Weighed against the positive testimony of the complaining witness, accused-appellant's denial, unsubstantiated by convincing evidence, loses evidentiary value.[17]
	GR No. 178541 2008-03-27	PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused in the crime are definitely shown, particularly when we consider that it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[47] Where a reliable eyewitness has fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial to the successful prosecution of a criminal case.[48] It is obvious from the records that Aleine positively and categorically identified appellant as the person who shot Ramon during the incident. Her testimony was corroborated on relevant points by Edwin and Rey.
	GR NO. 176349 2007-07-10	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Compared with the factual backdrop painted by prosecution witnesses, appellant's version of what transpired only generates disbelief. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[22] To be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability;[23] whereas for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[24] In the instant case, it was not shown that it was physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Moreover, nobody corroborated his alibi.
	GR NO. 160540 2007-03-22	VICIA D. PASCUAL v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it having been proven beyond reasonable [doubt] the guilt of [petitioner] VICIA DAVID PASCUAL in Criminal Case No. 98-1015, for the crime of estafa under [Article 315,] paragraph 1 [b], as principal, with no aggravating and mitigating circumstances, she is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison term penalty of four [4] years two [2] months of prision correcional in its medium period, as minimum to twenty [20] years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum; to indemnify complainant Assumption College Parents Council the amount of P578,208.96 with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the information until fully paid; and to pay the costs.
	GR NO. 172966 2007-02-08	PEOPLE v. EUGENIO PILIIN Y GARCIA TINGA, J.
The trial court properly appreciated the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in their execution, without risk to himself arising from the defenses which the offended party might make.[21] To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.[22] The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[23] Appellant's wife witnessed the incident from its inception up to its consummation. She testified: Q- Madam Witness, at about 7:20 in the evening of November 19, 1997, do you recall where were you then? A- I was inside our house and I went out of the house to open our gate, Sir.
	GR NO. 173022 2007-01-23	PEOPLE v. DARIUS RODRIGO Y FAJARDO TINGA, J.
Plata's effort to impute ill-motive on the part of de la Cruz to falsely testify against him does not hold water. Even granting that De la Cruz may have an axe to grind is of no moment. Plata was positively identified by Oliver. His statement was corroborated by dela Cruz. Motive becomes essential only when the identity of the culprit is in doubt[34] and not when he is positively identified by a credible witness.
	GR NO. 170473 2006-10-12	PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS TINGA, J.
It is well-settled that alibi is one of the weakest defenses because it is easily fabricated.[37] For alibi to prosper, the appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[38] In the instant case, it was established that the house of the uncle of appellant, where he purportedly was at the time of the commission of the crime, was only 10 to 15 minutes away from the place of the incident.[39] Thus, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime when it happened, rendering his defense of alibi unworthy of credit. As correctly observed by the appellate court: Appellant miserably failed to prove the requisite impossibility of committing the crime of rape.

RODOLFO C. VELASCO v. PEOPLE