Lawyerly

GR No. 193839

2013-11-27

SERENO, C.J.

Superiority in number does not necessarily amount to the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength.[74] It must be shown that the aggressors combined forces in order to secure advantage from their superiority in strength.[75] When appreciating this qualifying circumstance, it must be proven that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased.[76] Indeed, when assailants attack a victim alternately, they cannot be said to have taken advantage of their superior strength.[77]

GR No. 188322

2012-04-11

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court would like to reiterate that no standard form of behavior is expected of an individual who witnesses something shocking or gruesome like murder. This is especially true when the assailant is near. It is not unusual that some people would feel reluctant in getting involved in a criminal incident.[37]

GR NO. 171087

2006-07-12

PEOPLE v. FABIAN SADES Y RODEL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The defense of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear and positive identification of appellant as the assailant of the deceased. The positive identification of the assailant, when categorical and consistent without any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, prevails over alibi and denial which are negative, self-serving and undeserving of weight in law.[16] The defense of denial, like alibi, is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily.[17]

GR No. 156786

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

It has been held that a witness testifying about the same nerve-wracking event can hardly be expected to be correct in every detail and consistent with other witnesses in every respect, considering the inevitability of differences in perception, recollection, viewpoint or impressions, as well as in their physical, mental, emotional and psychological states at the time of the reception and recall of such impressions. After all, no two persons are alike in powers of observation and recall. Total recall or perfect symmetry is not required as long as witnesses concur on material points.[6]

GR No. 153008

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. LARRY CACHAPERO Y BASILIO

PANGANIBAN, J.

Finally, it is a general rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears on record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence that have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[32] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[33] Thus, when a guileless girl of seven credibly declares that she has been raped, she has said all that is necessary to prove the ravishment of her honor. [34]

GR No. 143085

2004-03-10

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO BORBON Y BOTER

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is well settled that a bare and unsubstantiated denial, being merely self-serving, is itself hardly given credence.[12] Alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[13] Furthermore, alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification by an eyewitness.[14] Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the twin defenses of denial and alibi.[15]

GR No. 147231

2004-02-18

PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

It is well settled that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight in law.[20] Hence, the defense of denial and alibi cannot prosper in the light of the positive identification by eyewitnesses Ellyn Sobusa and Roselyn Sobusa that appellant was the one who shot their mother.

GR No. 142431

2004-01-14

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO ANCHETA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Q. When you said that he removed your shortpants and panty when he was doing that what did you do if any? A. I cannot do anything because I am only his child ma'am.[11] Well-settled is the rule that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect. Having observed the deportment of witnesses during the trial, the trial judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility; thus, his findings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that he overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that could have altered the conviction of appellants.[12] No such circumstances obtain in this case.

GR No. 145166

2003-10-08

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ROMERO Y BARBACINA

AZCUNA, J.

It is well-settled that mere relationship of a witness to the victim thus not impair the witness' credibility.[46] On the contrary, a witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[47] In the same manner, even if Ofelia Santiago is a close friend of the victim, such a relationship does not impair her credibility. Moreover, there is no evidence that prosecution witnesses Jefferson Trinidad and Ofelia Santiago were actuated by improper motive in testifying against appellants; hence, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[48]

GR No. 152604

2003-09-18

PEOPLE v. LEONCIO PEDRIGAL Y SIMBALLANA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Significantly, the most telling proof that appellant did not act in self-defense was the number of wounds he inflicted on Napeñas. Napeñas suffered seven (7) stab wounds, one of which proved to be fatal. The nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the assertion of self-defense since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend.[9]

GR No. 143294

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. CIRILO MAGALONA Y ONOON

PER CURIAM

It is also a well-entrenched rule that when it comes to the issue of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court generally will not overturn the findings of the trial court since the trial judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility, having observed the deportment of witnesses during the trial.[71] Thus, the trial court's findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[72] We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court.

GR Nos. 128378

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. ROBERT GOMEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Next, the appellants emphasized the lack of any direct evidence that prove the existence of a conspiracy between them. They also argued inasmuch as the prosecution failed to establish any motive on their part to kill the victim, no conspiracy can be inferred.[33] However, the long-standing doctrine is that, although there is no direct proof of conspiracy, the same may still be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the appellants themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[34] It can be clearly seen from the evidence that Samson Perez was overwhelmed in a concerted attack by the four appellants. They ganged up on him and, apparently driven by the same blood-thirsty purpose, they repeatedly stabbed him with bladed weapons and continued to do so even after Samson Perez fell to the ground.[35]

	GR No. 193839 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. JAVIER CAÑAVERAS SERENO, C.J.
Superiority in number does not necessarily amount to the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength.[74] It must be shown that the aggressors combined forces in order to secure advantage from their superiority in strength.[75] When appreciating this qualifying circumstance, it must be proven that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased.[76] Indeed, when assailants attack a victim alternately, they cannot be said to have taken advantage of their superior strength.[77]
	GR No. 188322 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court would like to reiterate that no standard form of behavior is expected of an individual who witnesses something shocking or gruesome like murder. This is especially true when the assailant is near. It is not unusual that some people would feel reluctant in getting involved in a criminal incident.[37]
	GR NO. 171087 2006-07-12	PEOPLE v. FABIAN SADES Y RODEL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The defense of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear and positive identification of appellant as the assailant of the deceased. The positive identification of the assailant, when categorical and consistent without any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, prevails over alibi and denial which are negative, self-serving and undeserving of weight in law.[16] The defense of denial, like alibi, is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily.[17]
	GR No. 156786 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
It has been held that a witness testifying about the same nerve-wracking event can hardly be expected to be correct in every detail and consistent with other witnesses in every respect, considering the inevitability of differences in perception, recollection, viewpoint or impressions, as well as in their physical, mental, emotional and psychological states at the time of the reception and recall of such impressions. After all, no two persons are alike in powers of observation and recall. Total recall or perfect symmetry is not required as long as witnesses concur on material points.[6]
	GR No. 153008 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. LARRY CACHAPERO Y BASILIO PANGANIBAN, J.
Finally, it is a general rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears on record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence that have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[32] This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[33] Thus, when a guileless girl of seven credibly declares that she has been raped, she has said all that is necessary to prove the ravishment of her honor. [34]
	GR No. 143085 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO BORBON Y BOTER CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is well settled that a bare and unsubstantiated denial, being merely self-serving, is itself hardly given credence.[12] Alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[13] Furthermore, alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification by an eyewitness.[14] Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the twin defenses of denial and alibi.[15]
	GR No. 147231 2004-02-18	PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
It is well settled that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight in law.[20] Hence, the defense of denial and alibi cannot prosper in the light of the positive identification by eyewitnesses Ellyn Sobusa and Roselyn Sobusa that appellant was the one who shot their mother.
	GR No. 142431 2004-01-14	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO ANCHETA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Q. When you said that he removed your shortpants and panty when he was doing that what did you do if any? A. I cannot do anything because I am only his child ma'am.[11] Well-settled is the rule that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect. Having observed the deportment of witnesses during the trial, the trial judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility; thus, his findings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that he overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that could have altered the conviction of appellants.[12] No such circumstances obtain in this case.
	GR No. 145166 2003-10-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ROMERO Y BARBACINA AZCUNA, J.
It is well-settled that mere relationship of a witness to the victim thus not impair the witness' credibility.[46] On the contrary, a witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[47] In the same manner, even if Ofelia Santiago is a close friend of the victim, such a relationship does not impair her credibility. Moreover, there is no evidence that prosecution witnesses Jefferson Trinidad and Ofelia Santiago were actuated by improper motive in testifying against appellants; hence, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[48]
	GR No. 152604 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. LEONCIO PEDRIGAL Y SIMBALLANA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Significantly, the most telling proof that appellant did not act in self-defense was the number of wounds he inflicted on Napeñas. Napeñas suffered seven (7) stab wounds, one of which proved to be fatal. The nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the assertion of self-defense since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend.[9]
	GR No. 143294 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. CIRILO MAGALONA Y ONOON PER CURIAM
It is also a well-entrenched rule that when it comes to the issue of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court generally will not overturn the findings of the trial court since the trial judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility, having observed the deportment of witnesses during the trial.[71] Thus, the trial court's findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[72] We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court.
	GR Nos. 128378 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. ROBERT GOMEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Next, the appellants emphasized the lack of any direct evidence that prove the existence of a conspiracy between them. They also argued inasmuch as the prosecution failed to establish any motive on their part to kill the victim, no conspiracy can be inferred.[33] However, the long-standing doctrine is that, although there is no direct proof of conspiracy, the same may still be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the appellants themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[34] It can be clearly seen from the evidence that Samson Perez was overwhelmed in a concerted attack by the four appellants. They ganged up on him and, apparently driven by the same blood-thirsty purpose, they repeatedly stabbed him with bladed weapons and continued to do so even after Samson Perez fell to the ground.[35]

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ALIBEN