Lawyerly

GR No. 169440

2011-11-23

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Positive identification of a culprit is of great weight in determining whether an accused is guilty or not.[51] Gemma, in claiming the defense of mistaken identity, is in reality denying her involvement in the crime. This Court has held that the defense of denial is insipid and weak as it is easy to fabricate and difficult to prove; thus, it cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[52] The defense of denial is unavailing when placed astride the undisputed fact that there was positive identification of the accused.[53]

GR No. 178039

2011-01-19

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO UYBOCO Y RAMOS

PEREZ, J.

The testimonies of Nimfa and Jepson sufficiently point to the participation of appellant. While he was not present during the abduction, he was present in the house where the victims were detained, oftentimes giving the phone to Nimfa to talk to Jepson. He also actively demanded ransom from Jepson. The conspiracy was likewise proven by the above testimonies. Appellant conspired with Macias and other John Does in committing the crime. Therefore, even with the absence of appellant in the abduction stage, he is still liable for kidnapping for ransom because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[60]

GR No. 189971

2010-08-23

FREDDIE CABILDO v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

It is settled that the testimony of a single yet credible and trustworthy witness suffices to support a conviction.[20] This principle finds more compelling application when the lone witness is the victim himself whose direct and positive identification of his assailants is almost always regarded with indubitable credibility, owing to the natural tendency of victims to seek justice, and thus strive to remember the faces of their malefactors and the manner in which they committed the crime. [21]

GR No. 188561

2010-01-15

PEOPLE v. FELIPE AYADE Y PULOD

NACHURA, J.

Likewise, no ill motive was adduced as to why VVV would impute to Ayade, her own father, so grave a charge. The alleged ill motive of Ayade's mother-in-law, GGG, is highly illogical. It is certainly absurd that GGG, VVV's own grandmother, would fabricate a very disturbing story just because she and Ayade had a shallow dispute on the non-payment of some electric bill. Ayade's imputation against GGG is but a lame and pathetic excuse in order to exculpate himself from the bestial and devious act he did to his own daughter. Thus, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, specifically of VVV, a categorical, consistent, and positive identification of appellant prevails over denial and alibi. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, denial and alibi are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[16]

GR No. 168446

2009-09-18

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO CRUZ

PERALTA, J.

It is immaterial whether appellant Agustin acted as a principal or an accomplice. What really matters is that the conspiracy was proven and he took part in it. As lucidly shown in the evidence, without the participation of appellant Agustin, the commission of the offense would not have come to fruition, and as clearly presented by the prosecution, he was the one who paved the way for Atty. Soriano to board the vehicle and his closeness with the victim led the latter to trust the former, thus, accomplishing the appellants' devious plan. Consequently, the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime, because in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.[62]

GR No. 156009

2009-06-05

ROMMEL C. BRIONES v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

As against this credible and positive testimony of S/G Gual, Briones could only set up denial and alibi as his defenses. We have previously ruled that for these defenses to deserve merit, they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.[18] Under the present facts, these defenses were without corroboration. On the contrary, Briones and his new counsel desperately now move to try the case again at the expense of Briones' former counsel; based on allegedly newly discovered evidence.[19] They blame the former counsel's allegedly erroneous legal strategy when he raised denial and alibi as Briones' defenses, instead of invoking self-defense or defense of a relative. They also now foist on this Court an Affidavit of Desistance dated July 29, 2002[20] executed by Fuentes, as well as an Affidavit dated July 22, 2002[21] executed by one Oskar Salud. These documents allegedly prove that Briones had no intent to gain and, in fact, threw away the firearm after grabbing it from S/G Molina.

GR No. 146296

2007-10-15

EDUARDO GULMATICO Y BRIGATAY v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Furthermore, they cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of the accused by the principal witnesses. Absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, a categorical, consistent and positive identification of the accused prevails over denial and alibi. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, denial and alibi are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[33]

GR Nos. 137949-52

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. GEORGE 'JORGE' BOLINGET Y BAGTAN

PUNO, J.

Republic Act No. 8294 provides that "if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance."[47] We have consistently ruled that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms.[48] Thus, in People vs. Ladjaalam,[49] we held:. . . A simple reading thereof (R.A. No. 8294) shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. . . .

GR No. 137554

2003-10-01

PEOPLE v. JOHN MAMARION

PER CURIAM

at the Iloilo Police Provincial Command in Sta. Barbara, Iloilo.[104] Maclang's denials are futile. As a defense, denials are insipid and weak, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.[105] Mere denial of involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over positive testimony.[106] Also, as in the case of Harisco and Domingo, Maclang failed to prove the impossibility of his presence when the crime was being planned or that Gale was ill-motivated in identifying him as one of those who spearheaded the crime. The participation of both appellants Harisco and Maclang is spelled-out very clearly by the trial court, based on the evidence adduced before it, as follows: . . . The facts and circumstances which indubitably show the participation of Major Maclang and Juliet Harisco in the conspiracy may be succinctly summed up, thus:

GR Nos. 146097-98

2003-08-26

PEOPLE v. JUAN CARIÑAGA

PER CURIAM

Q No discharge or blood upon withdrawal of the examining fingers. What do you mean by this? A In terms of, there are traumatic penetration wherein, like for example, instrumentation that will cause the bleeding inside the vagina. But in this case, there was no discharge nor bleeding noted upon withdrawal of the examining finger.[26] Appellant's trite defenses of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical statements of Venilda. Alibi is often viewed with suspicion and received with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easy to fabricate. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be convincing to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[27] Other than his self-serving testimony, appellant did not present evidence to corroborate his alibi and denial. Self-serving declarations are inadmissible as evidence of the facts asserted.[28]

GR No. 134940

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. CATALINO MELENDRES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In People vs. Hamton[41], we held that:Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement need not be proven by direct evidence; it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during and after the commission of the offense pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Indeed, jurisprudence consistently tells us that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.

	GR No. 169440 2011-11-23	GEMMA ONG v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Positive identification of a culprit is of great weight in determining whether an accused is guilty or not.[51] Gemma, in claiming the defense of mistaken identity, is in reality denying her involvement in the crime. This Court has held that the defense of denial is insipid and weak as it is easy to fabricate and difficult to prove; thus, it cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[52] The defense of denial is unavailing when placed astride the undisputed fact that there was positive identification of the accused.[53]
	GR No. 178039 2011-01-19	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO UYBOCO Y RAMOS PEREZ, J.
The testimonies of Nimfa and Jepson sufficiently point to the participation of appellant. While he was not present during the abduction, he was present in the house where the victims were detained, oftentimes giving the phone to Nimfa to talk to Jepson. He also actively demanded ransom from Jepson. The conspiracy was likewise proven by the above testimonies. Appellant conspired with Macias and other John Does in committing the crime. Therefore, even with the absence of appellant in the abduction stage, he is still liable for kidnapping for ransom because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[60]
	GR No. 189971 2010-08-23	FREDDIE CABILDO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
It is settled that the testimony of a single yet credible and trustworthy witness suffices to support a conviction.[20] This principle finds more compelling application when the lone witness is the victim himself whose direct and positive identification of his assailants is almost always regarded with indubitable credibility, owing to the natural tendency of victims to seek justice, and thus strive to remember the faces of their malefactors and the manner in which they committed the crime. [21]
	GR No. 188561 2010-01-15	PEOPLE v. FELIPE AYADE Y PULOD NACHURA, J.
Likewise, no ill motive was adduced as to why VVV would impute to Ayade, her own father, so grave a charge. The alleged ill motive of Ayade's mother-in-law, GGG, is highly illogical. It is certainly absurd that GGG, VVV's own grandmother, would fabricate a very disturbing story just because she and Ayade had a shallow dispute on the non-payment of some electric bill. Ayade's imputation against GGG is but a lame and pathetic excuse in order to exculpate himself from the bestial and devious act he did to his own daughter. Thus, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, specifically of VVV, a categorical, consistent, and positive identification of appellant prevails over denial and alibi. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, denial and alibi are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[16]
	GR No. 168446 2009-09-18	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO CRUZ PERALTA, J.
It is immaterial whether appellant Agustin acted as a principal or an accomplice. What really matters is that the conspiracy was proven and he took part in it. As lucidly shown in the evidence, without the participation of appellant Agustin, the commission of the offense would not have come to fruition, and as clearly presented by the prosecution, he was the one who paved the way for Atty. Soriano to board the vehicle and his closeness with the victim led the latter to trust the former, thus, accomplishing the appellants' devious plan. Consequently, the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime, because in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.[62]
	GR No. 156009 2009-06-05	ROMMEL C. BRIONES v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
As against this credible and positive testimony of S/G Gual, Briones could only set up denial and alibi as his defenses. We have previously ruled that for these defenses to deserve merit, they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.[18] Under the present facts, these defenses were without corroboration. On the contrary, Briones and his new counsel desperately now move to try the case again at the expense of Briones' former counsel; based on allegedly newly discovered evidence.[19] They blame the former counsel's allegedly erroneous legal strategy when he raised denial and alibi as Briones' defenses, instead of invoking self-defense or defense of a relative. They also now foist on this Court an Affidavit of Desistance dated July 29, 2002[20] executed by Fuentes, as well as an Affidavit dated July 22, 2002[21] executed by one Oskar Salud. These documents allegedly prove that Briones had no intent to gain and, in fact, threw away the firearm after grabbing it from S/G Molina.
	GR No. 146296 2007-10-15	EDUARDO GULMATICO Y BRIGATAY v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Furthermore, they cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of the accused by the principal witnesses. Absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, a categorical, consistent and positive identification of the accused prevails over denial and alibi. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, denial and alibi are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[33]
	GR Nos. 137949-52 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. GEORGE 'JORGE' BOLINGET Y BAGTAN PUNO, J.
Republic Act No. 8294 provides that "if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance."[47] We have consistently ruled that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms.[48] Thus, in People vs. Ladjaalam,[49] we held:. . . A simple reading thereof (R.A. No. 8294) shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. . . .
	GR No. 137554 2003-10-01	PEOPLE v. JOHN MAMARION PER CURIAM
at the Iloilo Police Provincial Command in Sta. Barbara, Iloilo.[104] Maclang's denials are futile. As a defense, denials are insipid and weak, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.[105] Mere denial of involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over positive testimony.[106] Also, as in the case of Harisco and Domingo, Maclang failed to prove the impossibility of his presence when the crime was being planned or that Gale was ill-motivated in identifying him as one of those who spearheaded the crime. The participation of both appellants Harisco and Maclang is spelled-out very clearly by the trial court, based on the evidence adduced before it, as follows: . . . The facts and circumstances which indubitably show the participation of Major Maclang and Juliet Harisco in the conspiracy may be succinctly summed up, thus:
	GR Nos. 146097-98 2003-08-26	PEOPLE v. JUAN CARIÑAGA PER CURIAM
Q No discharge or blood upon withdrawal of the examining fingers. What do you mean by this? A In terms of, there are traumatic penetration wherein, like for example, instrumentation that will cause the bleeding inside the vagina. But in this case, there was no discharge nor bleeding noted upon withdrawal of the examining finger.[26] Appellant's trite defenses of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical statements of Venilda. Alibi is often viewed with suspicion and received with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easy to fabricate. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be convincing to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[27] Other than his self-serving testimony, appellant did not present evidence to corroborate his alibi and denial. Self-serving declarations are inadmissible as evidence of the facts asserted.[28]
	GR No. 134940 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. CATALINO MELENDRES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In People vs. Hamton[41], we held that:Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement need not be proven by direct evidence; it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during and after the commission of the offense pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Indeed, jurisprudence consistently tells us that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO HAMTON