Lawyerly

GR No. 178272

2011-03-14

PERALTA, J.

Appellant insisted that Efren and Geraldino's failure to immediately disclose the appellant's identity to the authorities show that they do not know the identity of the perpetrator. The argument does not hold water. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[36]

GR No. 187049

2010-05-04

PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

However, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it is not inconceivable for appellant to have acceded to her request to reveal his identity by removing the mask that hid his face. We have ruled that it is not uncommon for criminals to be careless or to even intentionally reveal their identities to their victims. The failure by a criminal to conceal his identity would not make the commission of the crime any less credible. Braggadocio among criminals is not unexpected. Very often too, they feel secure in the thought that they have instilled sufficient fear in their victims that the latter will not give them away to the authorities.[35] Here, unfortunately for appellant, AAA tried to seek the assistance of the people near the waiting shed at the first opportunity. After mustering enough courage, AAA also revealed her ordeal and identified appellant as the one (1) who raped her.

GR No. 170222

2009-06-18

EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[23]

GR No. 130531

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SIMON

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

We have repeatedly held that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response where one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[45] There is no clear cut standard form of behavior that can be drawn.[46] Witnesses are usually reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in or dragged into criminal investigations due to a variety of valid reasons.[47] One may immediately report the incident to the proper authorities, while another, in fear and/or avoiding involvement in a criminal investigation, may keep to himself what he had witnessed.[48] Others reveal the perpetrator of the crime only after the lapse of one year or so to make sure that the possibility of a threat to his life or to his loved ones is already diminished, if not totally avoided. In People vs. Gornes,[49] we held:"It is true that the charge against the appellant was initiated only three and a half years after the commission of the crime. However, the fact of delay alone does not work against the witnesses. In People vs. Rostata,[50] this Court held:

GR No. 145034-35

2004-02-05

PEOPLE v. PEDRO INTONG Y AGAPAY

VITUG, J.

Understandably, appellant assails the reliability of the identification made by the prosecution for, after all, it is the only way by which his alibi could carry some weight. It is well-settled that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[8] In this case, both Genalyn and Gino have been able to identify appellant by the lightning flashes that illuminated their otherwise dark house and through his voice. It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated.[9] Even the split-second illumination by a flash of lightning could suffice to confirm identification of appellant. Identification of an accused by his voice has also been accepted particularly in cases where, such as in this case, the witnesses have known the malefactor personally for so long[10] and so intimately.[11] In People v. Calixtro,[12] the Court has given credence to the blindfolded rape victim's identification of the accused, a barriomate, by his voice. Still in an earlier case, the Court has said:"x x x [C]omplainant's identification of the appellant was not based solely on the latter's physical defect, but by his voice as well, when he warned complainant, `Flor, keep quiet.' Although complainant did not see appellant's face during the sexual act because the house was dark, nevertheless, no error could have been committed by the complainant in identifying the voice of the accused, inasmuch as complainant and appellant were neighbors."[13] The young victim, narrating her ordeal, declared before the trial court:

GR No. 142505

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO FELIPE

PANGANIBAN, J.

Second, in the light of the positive identification of appellants as participants in the perpetration of the crime, their denial and alibi cannot be sustained.[37] Well-settled is the rule that such positive identification, when categorical and consistent, prevails over these twin defenses.[38] Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, they are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[39]

GR Nos. 148424-27

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. DANILO CARAANG

PANGANIBAN, J.

Needless to say, the straightforward, clear and positive testimony of the victims -- coupled with the absence of any motive to fabricate evidence or to falsely implicate appellant -- may be enough to convict him.[36] Neither can his denial and alibi be sustained in the light of their positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime.[37] When categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, it prevails over such defenses[38] which -- unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof -- are deemed negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[39]

GR No. L-146308

2002-07-18

PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ

PANGANIBAN, J.

substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are deemed to be negative and self-serving.[32] Appellants' Alibi

GR No. 144052

2002-03-06

PEOPLE v. CONRADO DE LEON

PANGANIBAN, J.

In the light of the positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, his denial and alibi cannot be sustained.[35] Well-settled is the rule that the positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[36] Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defenses are negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[37]

GR No. 124975

2002-02-20

PEOPLE v. FLORIANO AMAQUIN Y LASTIMADO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Appellant denies having committed the crime of rape against Jonah. Unfortunately, it is a bare denial not established by clear and convincing evidence, thus undeserving of weight in law. It cannot prevail over the positive declarations of Jonah who in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified appellant as the defiler of her chastity[22] and categorically testified that he violated her. She told her story in court: "ATTY. OLAGUER: Q: Is Floriano Amaquin present in Court right now?

GR No. 140550

2002-02-13

PEOPLE v. EDGAR AYUPAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

Well-settled is the rule that the positive identification of the accused -- when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter -- prevails over alibi and denial which are negative and self-serving, undeserving of weight in law.[21]

	GR No. 178272 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALCEDO PERALTA, J.
Appellant insisted that Efren and Geraldino's failure to immediately disclose the appellant's identity to the authorities show that they do not know the identity of the perpetrator. The argument does not hold water. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[36]
	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it is not inconceivable for appellant to have acceded to her request to reveal his identity by removing the mask that hid his face. We have ruled that it is not uncommon for criminals to be careless or to even intentionally reveal their identities to their victims. The failure by a criminal to conceal his identity would not make the commission of the crime any less credible. Braggadocio among criminals is not unexpected. Very often too, they feel secure in the thought that they have instilled sufficient fear in their victims that the latter will not give them away to the authorities.[35] Here, unfortunately for appellant, AAA tried to seek the assistance of the people near the waiting shed at the first opportunity. After mustering enough courage, AAA also revealed her ordeal and identified appellant as the one (1) who raped her.
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[23]
	GR No. 130531 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SIMON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We have repeatedly held that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response where one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[45] There is no clear cut standard form of behavior that can be drawn.[46] Witnesses are usually reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in or dragged into criminal investigations due to a variety of valid reasons.[47] One may immediately report the incident to the proper authorities, while another, in fear and/or avoiding involvement in a criminal investigation, may keep to himself what he had witnessed.[48] Others reveal the perpetrator of the crime only after the lapse of one year or so to make sure that the possibility of a threat to his life or to his loved ones is already diminished, if not totally avoided. In People vs. Gornes,[49] we held:"It is true that the charge against the appellant was initiated only three and a half years after the commission of the crime. However, the fact of delay alone does not work against the witnesses. In People vs. Rostata,[50] this Court held:
	GR No. 145034-35 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. PEDRO INTONG Y AGAPAY VITUG, J.
Understandably, appellant assails the reliability of the identification made by the prosecution for, after all, it is the only way by which his alibi could carry some weight. It is well-settled that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[8] In this case, both Genalyn and Gino have been able to identify appellant by the lightning flashes that illuminated their otherwise dark house and through his voice. It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated.[9] Even the split-second illumination by a flash of lightning could suffice to confirm identification of appellant. Identification of an accused by his voice has also been accepted particularly in cases where, such as in this case, the witnesses have known the malefactor personally for so long[10] and so intimately.[11] In People v. Calixtro,[12] the Court has given credence to the blindfolded rape victim's identification of the accused, a barriomate, by his voice. Still in an earlier case, the Court has said:"x x x [C]omplainant's identification of the appellant was not based solely on the latter's physical defect, but by his voice as well, when he warned complainant, `Flor, keep quiet.' Although complainant did not see appellant's face during the sexual act because the house was dark, nevertheless, no error could have been committed by the complainant in identifying the voice of the accused, inasmuch as complainant and appellant were neighbors."[13] The young victim, narrating her ordeal, declared before the trial court:
	GR No. 142505 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO FELIPE PANGANIBAN, J.
Second, in the light of the positive identification of appellants as participants in the perpetration of the crime, their denial and alibi cannot be sustained.[37] Well-settled is the rule that such positive identification, when categorical and consistent, prevails over these twin defenses.[38] Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, they are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[39]
	GR Nos. 148424-27 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. DANILO CARAANG PANGANIBAN, J.
Needless to say, the straightforward, clear and positive testimony of the victims -- coupled with the absence of any motive to fabricate evidence or to falsely implicate appellant -- may be enough to convict him.[36] Neither can his denial and alibi be sustained in the light of their positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime.[37] When categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, it prevails over such defenses[38] which -- unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof -- are deemed negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[39]
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are deemed to be negative and self-serving.[32] Appellants' Alibi
	GR No. 144052 2002-03-06	PEOPLE v. CONRADO DE LEON PANGANIBAN, J.
In the light of the positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, his denial and alibi cannot be sustained.[35] Well-settled is the rule that the positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[36] Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defenses are negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[37]
	GR No. 124975 2002-02-20	PEOPLE v. FLORIANO AMAQUIN Y LASTIMADO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Appellant denies having committed the crime of rape against Jonah. Unfortunately, it is a bare denial not established by clear and convincing evidence, thus undeserving of weight in law. It cannot prevail over the positive declarations of Jonah who in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified appellant as the defiler of her chastity[22] and categorically testified that he violated her. She told her story in court: "ATTY. OLAGUER: Q: Is Floriano Amaquin present in Court right now?
	GR No. 140550 2002-02-13	PEOPLE v. EDGAR AYUPAN PANGANIBAN, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the positive identification of the accused -- when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter -- prevails over alibi and denial which are negative and self-serving, undeserving of weight in law.[21]

PEOPLE v. NATIVIDAD 'TONY' LOVEDORIAL