Lawyerly

GR No. 177983

2010-03-30

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As for Jadap's defense of denial and alibi, we cannot sustain the same in light of the eyewitnesses' positive identification of Jadap and their clear and convincing testimonies regarding Jadap's shooting of the victim. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[23] In the case at bar, Jadap failed to prove the element of physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it took place. He himself admitted that it would only take him about ten minutes to walk from his house in Bayabas to his wife's house at Raagas Beach, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City, where the crime was committed.

GR No. 186497

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL

VELASCO JR., J.

It should be noted that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the appellate court generally yields to the judgment of the trial courts since they are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[20] Thus, this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

GR No. 177564

2008-10-31

ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Alibi is an inherently weak defense, and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[27] The prosecution witness had categorically identified Arturo as the author of the crime. With the positive identification of Arturo, the defense must demonstrate by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.[28] Hence, it is not sufficient that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[29] In this case, Arturo said that he went to sleep at around 7:30 p.m. of the night in question.[30] Arturo's brother-in-law also claimed that he saw Arturo asleep before 8:00 p.m.[31] His wife also testified that Arturo went to bed a little after 7:00 p.m. of the night.[32] While it may be true that Arturo was asleep before the killing incident took place, there is also a great possibility that Arturo woke up and hurriedly went to the place of the victim and, after killing her, returned to his sister's house at around 8:30 p.m. This thesis gains more significance since Arturo himself admitted that his sister's house is very close to that of the victim, which is only less than 300 meters away. There is, therefore, a huge possibility that Arturo was present at the scene of the crime when it was committed at around 8:00 p.m. of 23 July 2002. Hence, the defense is unsuccessful in demonstrating that it was physically impossible for Arturo to be there at the crime scene or nearby when the killing occurred. Besides, the witnesses who corroborated Arturo's alibi are his close relatives. This Court gives less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives, thus:One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.[33] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 176262

2007-09-11

PEOPLE v. EDILBERTO TORRES and JOSE TORRES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Alibi is an inherently weak defense and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[12] The prosecution witness had categorically identified appellants as participants in the crime. With the positive identification of the appellants, they must demonstrate by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.[13] Hence, it is not sufficient that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[14] In the instant case, appellant Jose admitted that there are available means of going to Tibagan from Saluysoy, and that it would take only about 2 hours to travel. His admission proves fatal to his defense. He surreptitiously acknowledged that it was physically possible for him to be at the scene when the crime happened.

GR NO. 171087

2006-07-12

PEOPLE v. FABIAN SADES Y RODEL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Anent the alleged inconsistencies in Marilyn's testimonies, i.e., when she pointed to the right side instead of the left side of her waist to indicate the gunshot wound of her husband, we find the same minor and inconsequential. It did not in any way lessen her credibility. Time and again we have held that minor variances in the details of a witness's account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony. Indeed, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes and would fall into confused statements, and at times, far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence, such lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity.[12] If it appears that the same witness has not willfully perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his testimony and the conclusion of the trial judge regarding his demeanor and behavior on the witness stand, his testimony on material points may be accepted.[13] Marilyn's mistake in pointing to the right side showed her candidness and the fact that she did not rehearse her answers for the trial.

GR No. 142505

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO FELIPE

PANGANIBAN, J.

"Because the injury on the neck will mean at least one (1) person and the abrasions will mean another person, so it involves two or more because the cut length can be done by several persons. The cut [on] that neck cannot be done x x x once only to penetrate the whole organ."[55] There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[56] It comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit and forthwith to pursue it actually. [57] It is not, however, necessary that direct proof be adduced to establish such agreement; it may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during and after the commission of the crime.[58]

GR Nos. 148424-27

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. DANILO CARAANG

PANGANIBAN, J.

To reiterate, conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[81] It comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith to pursue it actually.[82] As in this case, conspiracy is proved by concerted acts or other forms of evidence indicative of actual cooperation -- a common purpose or design, as well as a concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony and to pursue it actually.[83]

GR No. 138366

2003-09-11

PEOPLE v. RUBEN CAÑETE

CORONA, J.

A - The immediate cause of death was due to shock secondary to massive loss of blood, internal bleeding secondary to pellet wounds.[32] In this case, the prosecution witnesses positively identified the appellants as the persons who fired their guns at Tumayao. It was of no moment who among the appellants actually hit and killed the victim. The fact that the witnesses' testimonies were consistent regarding the commission of the crime as well as the positive identification of the appellants as the perpetrators thereof, far outweighs the minor inconsistencies therein. [33] Thus:So long as the witnesses' testimonies agree on substantial matters, the inconsequential inconsistencies and contradictions dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the verity of their testimonies. When the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and can not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the killing of the victim.[34] The time-tested rule is that, between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the mere denials of the accused, the former undisputedly deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary value. [35] More so in this case where appellants failed to sufficiently explain why a shotgun was found at Sotero's hut or why Trinidad was found positive for gunpowder burns.

GR Nos. 124830-31

2003-06-27

PEOPLE v. GERARDO 'GERRY' EVINA Y PADUAL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The court a quo was correct in discarding the appellant's alibi. Alibi, like denial, is inherently weak and easily fabricated.[71] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[72] In the case at bar, the element of physical impossibility is absent because the appellant's place of work, where he alleged he was at the time the rapes were committed, was only one kilometer away from the Catcharro residence. The appellant admitted that the distance could be negotiated by a ten to fifteen minute walk. The appellant even failed to adduce any documentary evidence that he reported for work on November 3 and 7, 1991 and the exact time when he left. Moreover, the alibi of the appellant must crumble as he was positively identified by Maritess as the rapist.[73]

GR No. 135682

2003-03-26

PEOPLE v. DANILO REYES Y BATAC

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We find the inconsistencies to be too trivial as to affect the credibility of PO1 Molato. Slight contradictions such as these even serve to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses and prove that their testimonies are not rehearsed nor perjured. What is important is the fact that there is a sustained consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.[11]

GR No. 148859

2002-09-24

HERMINIGILDO LUCAS v. CA

BELLOSILLO, J.

the accused were acquainted with one another or that there was an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is enough that the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense and that they had the same purpose or common design, and that they were united in its execution.[14] In the case before us, Lucas, Navarro and Lovena demonstrated their agreement to commit the theft by their unified acts of taking Luisito Tuazon's personal belongings away from his home and boarding a tricycle together to leave the locus criminis. Conspiracy can be

	GR No. 177983 2010-03-30	PEOPLE v. DANTE JADAP LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As for Jadap's defense of denial and alibi, we cannot sustain the same in light of the eyewitnesses' positive identification of Jadap and their clear and convincing testimonies regarding Jadap's shooting of the victim. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[23] In the case at bar, Jadap failed to prove the element of physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it took place. He himself admitted that it would only take him about ten minutes to walk from his house in Bayabas to his wife's house at Raagas Beach, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City, where the crime was committed.
	GR No. 186497 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL VELASCO JR., J.
It should be noted that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the appellate court generally yields to the judgment of the trial courts since they are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[20] Thus, this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
	GR No. 177564 2008-10-31	ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Alibi is an inherently weak defense, and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[27] The prosecution witness had categorically identified Arturo as the author of the crime. With the positive identification of Arturo, the defense must demonstrate by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.[28] Hence, it is not sufficient that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[29] In this case, Arturo said that he went to sleep at around 7:30 p.m. of the night in question.[30] Arturo's brother-in-law also claimed that he saw Arturo asleep before 8:00 p.m.[31] His wife also testified that Arturo went to bed a little after 7:00 p.m. of the night.[32] While it may be true that Arturo was asleep before the killing incident took place, there is also a great possibility that Arturo woke up and hurriedly went to the place of the victim and, after killing her, returned to his sister's house at around 8:30 p.m. This thesis gains more significance since Arturo himself admitted that his sister's house is very close to that of the victim, which is only less than 300 meters away. There is, therefore, a huge possibility that Arturo was present at the scene of the crime when it was committed at around 8:00 p.m. of 23 July 2002. Hence, the defense is unsuccessful in demonstrating that it was physically impossible for Arturo to be there at the crime scene or nearby when the killing occurred. Besides, the witnesses who corroborated Arturo's alibi are his close relatives. This Court gives less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives, thus:One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.[33] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 176262 2007-09-11	PEOPLE v. EDILBERTO TORRES and JOSE TORRES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Alibi is an inherently weak defense and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[12] The prosecution witness had categorically identified appellants as participants in the crime. With the positive identification of the appellants, they must demonstrate by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.[13] Hence, it is not sufficient that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[14] In the instant case, appellant Jose admitted that there are available means of going to Tibagan from Saluysoy, and that it would take only about 2 hours to travel. His admission proves fatal to his defense. He surreptitiously acknowledged that it was physically possible for him to be at the scene when the crime happened.
	GR NO. 171087 2006-07-12	PEOPLE v. FABIAN SADES Y RODEL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the alleged inconsistencies in Marilyn's testimonies, i.e., when she pointed to the right side instead of the left side of her waist to indicate the gunshot wound of her husband, we find the same minor and inconsequential. It did not in any way lessen her credibility. Time and again we have held that minor variances in the details of a witness's account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony. Indeed, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes and would fall into confused statements, and at times, far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence, such lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity.[12] If it appears that the same witness has not willfully perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his testimony and the conclusion of the trial judge regarding his demeanor and behavior on the witness stand, his testimony on material points may be accepted.[13] Marilyn's mistake in pointing to the right side showed her candidness and the fact that she did not rehearse her answers for the trial.
	GR No. 142505 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO FELIPE PANGANIBAN, J.
"Because the injury on the neck will mean at least one (1) person and the abrasions will mean another person, so it involves two or more because the cut length can be done by several persons. The cut [on] that neck cannot be done x x x once only to penetrate the whole organ."[55] There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[56] It comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit and forthwith to pursue it actually. [57] It is not, however, necessary that direct proof be adduced to establish such agreement; it may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during and after the commission of the crime.[58]
	GR Nos. 148424-27 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. DANILO CARAANG PANGANIBAN, J.
To reiterate, conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[81] It comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith to pursue it actually.[82] As in this case, conspiracy is proved by concerted acts or other forms of evidence indicative of actual cooperation -- a common purpose or design, as well as a concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony and to pursue it actually.[83]
	GR No. 138366 2003-09-11	PEOPLE v. RUBEN CAÑETE CORONA, J.
A - The immediate cause of death was due to shock secondary to massive loss of blood, internal bleeding secondary to pellet wounds.[32] In this case, the prosecution witnesses positively identified the appellants as the persons who fired their guns at Tumayao. It was of no moment who among the appellants actually hit and killed the victim. The fact that the witnesses' testimonies were consistent regarding the commission of the crime as well as the positive identification of the appellants as the perpetrators thereof, far outweighs the minor inconsistencies therein. [33] Thus:So long as the witnesses' testimonies agree on substantial matters, the inconsequential inconsistencies and contradictions dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the verity of their testimonies. When the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and can not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the killing of the victim.[34] The time-tested rule is that, between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the mere denials of the accused, the former undisputedly deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary value. [35] More so in this case where appellants failed to sufficiently explain why a shotgun was found at Sotero's hut or why Trinidad was found positive for gunpowder burns.
	GR Nos. 124830-31 2003-06-27	PEOPLE v. GERARDO 'GERRY' EVINA Y PADUAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
The court a quo was correct in discarding the appellant's alibi. Alibi, like denial, is inherently weak and easily fabricated.[71] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[72] In the case at bar, the element of physical impossibility is absent because the appellant's place of work, where he alleged he was at the time the rapes were committed, was only one kilometer away from the Catcharro residence. The appellant admitted that the distance could be negotiated by a ten to fifteen minute walk. The appellant even failed to adduce any documentary evidence that he reported for work on November 3 and 7, 1991 and the exact time when he left. Moreover, the alibi of the appellant must crumble as he was positively identified by Maritess as the rapist.[73]
	GR No. 135682 2003-03-26	PEOPLE v. DANILO REYES Y BATAC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We find the inconsistencies to be too trivial as to affect the credibility of PO1 Molato. Slight contradictions such as these even serve to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses and prove that their testimonies are not rehearsed nor perjured. What is important is the fact that there is a sustained consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.[11]
	GR No. 148859 2002-09-24	HERMINIGILDO LUCAS v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
the accused were acquainted with one another or that there was an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is enough that the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense and that they had the same purpose or common design, and that they were united in its execution.[14] In the case before us, Lucas, Navarro and Lovena demonstrated their agreement to commit the theft by their unified acts of taking Luisito Tuazon's personal belongings away from his home and boarding a tricycle together to leave the locus criminis. Conspiracy can be

PEOPLE v. ERICTO APPEGU Y MATERUM