You are on page 1of 7

PEOPLE vs GARY DELA CRUZ

GR 185717, 2011

FACTS: Version of the Prosecution the Accused was apprehended in a BUY-BUST operation conducted by
the a team police officers and the PDEA in Quezon City. One of the police officer posed as the poseur-buyer
who purchased a sachet of shabu from the Accused using buy-bust money. After such transaction was
completed the police operatives proceeded with the arrest but the Accused gave them a chase. He was
apprehended by PO1 Valencia who frisked him and thereby recovered the buy-bust money from him. In the
police station, the substance in the sachet as well as the buy-bust money was turned over to the desk officer
and the accused was committed to the city after the inquest. An information was filed thereafter. The police
officer who apprehended the Accused and the one who posed as the poseur-buyer testified for the
Prosecution. The testimony of the forensic chemist confirming the substance as shabu was dispensed with
upon stipulation by the defense.

Version of the Defense the Accused denied the allegation using the defense of denial and alleged a
frame-up by the arresting officers. According to him, the arrest transpired inside his house after five armed
men alighted from a Tamaraw FX in front of his house. One of them saw the Accused then entered his house
and frisked him and got 60 pesos from his pocket. Another man entered his house as well and got a shoe box.
When he asked to be informed of his supposed violation, he was merely told to explain at the precinct. They
proceeded to take the accused to the police precinct where he was investigated and subsequently detained.
Meanwhile, a man approached him and demanded 30k for his release. Two neighbors of the Accused served
as his witnesses.

Ruling of RTC: Accused, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. In convicting the Accused, the RTC relied on and gave credence to the
testimony of prosecution witnesses. The trial court likewise did not accord evidentiary weight to the
testimonies of the defense witnesses, stating that they were not present when the accused was arrested;
thus unaware of how the arrest has transpired. TRTC concluded that the testimonies did not provide clear
and convincing justification to overthrow the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
function by the police officers. Moreover, the lack of showing any ill motive on the part of the police officers
to testify against the accused, and the principle that the bare denial of an accused is inherently weak, the
RTC convicted the accused.

Ruling of CA: The CA upheld the findings of the trial court. It premium credence on the testimonies of the
police officers who arrested the Accused in flagrante delicto and positively identified him in open court over
the mere denial of the Accused, as corroborated by the defense witnesses. The CA found no improper motive
on the part of the police officers who, it said, were regularly performing their official duties.

Ruling of SC:
PEOPLE vs SAGUN,

Accused is being charged with RAPE. The evidence against him was the testimony of the victim which
was given full credence by the trial court; hence, by reason thereof he was found guilty of the rape.

In his appeal, the accused contends that the trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the testimony
of the complainant because it is tainted with inconsistencies and improbabilities. He places at issue the
credibility of private complainant, upon whose testimony he was convicted.

Minor inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, her credibility for they show that her testimony
was not contrived nor rehearsed. Besides, errorless testimony could not be expected when complainant is
recounting details of a harrowing experience.

The matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is best performed by the trial judge who can
weigh such testimony in the light of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses presented at the
trial. The trial judge is thereby placed in a vantage position to discriminate finely between what is true and
what is false in the versions given by the witnesses of the opposing parties.

RTC: Complainant testified in a direct and straightforward manner. She even demonstrated in court how she
was raped by accused-appellant. Complainant cried when she testified; her tears added poignancy to verity
born out of human nature and experience.

Appellate courts will not disturb the findings on the credibility, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the
testimony of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded
arbitrarily certain facts and circumstances of significance in the case.

It is accepted doctrine, that in the absence of evidence of improper motive on the part of the victim to
falsely testify against the accused, her testimony deserves credence. She had no improper motive
whatsoever, as admitted by accused-appellant himself, to impute such a very serious offense to him.

An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially so when it comes from the
mouth of a credible witness. The spontaneity of complainants testimony could not be discredited by mere
denials of accused-appellant. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong
evidence of non-culpability to merit credence.

SC Accused is guilty of rape. Assigned error in his appeal, are without basis. Trial court did not err in giving
full credence to the testimony of the complainant.
PEOPLE vs VILLANUEVA alias Tamayo

Accused charged of Rape with homicide raped a 9 year old girl then strangled her which directly resulted
to her death. During arraignment, accused pleaded GUILTY.

Trial judge gravely erred in accepting the plea of guilty without conducting SEARCHING QUESTIONS as to
the voluntariness of the plea.

PAO lawyers who represented the accused also reprimanded for utterly failing to defend the accused; they
have greatly failed to dispense with their duty to the accused. Incompetence, almost amounting to
ignorance.

Rape with homicide, penalty is DEATH so automatic review. Trial courts decision sentencing accused of
death was NULL AND VOID. Accuseds constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation
against him was violated by reason of the court accepting his plea of guilt. The case was remaded back to
the lower court for proper arraignment and trial.
PEOPLE vs. RODOLFO GALLO y GADO

Accused convicted by the Trial Court for syndicated illegal recruitment and for estafa.

The evidence adduced by the prosecution: Testimonial evidence by Dela Caza, who ,in consideration of a
promise of foreign employment, paid the amount of Php 45,000.00 to the accused.

Dela Caza appeared very firm and consistent in positively identifying accused-appellant as one of those who
induced him and the other applicants to part with their money. His testimony showed that accused-appellant
made false misrepresentations and promises in assuring them that after they paid the placement fee, jobs in
Korea as factory workers were waiting for them and that they would be deployed soon. In fact, Dela Caza
personally talked to accused-appellant and gave him the money and saw him sign and issue an official
receipt as proof of his payment. Without a doubt, accused-appellants actions constituted illegal recruitment.

Evidence supports conviction of the crime of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment

To reiterate, in establishing conspiracy, it is not essential that there be actual proof that all the conspirators
took a direct part in every act. It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.

Defense of Denial Cannot Prevail over Positive Identification. [p]ositive identification where categorical and
consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses on the matter
prevails over alibi and denial. between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses, on the one
hand, and bare denials of the accused, on the other hand, the former must prevail.

PEOPLE vs CRISTOBAL

Accused raped a pregnant married woman.

Defense of Accused: Denial and Alibi.

Trial Court The trial court found clear and convincing the categorical testimony of Cherry Tamayo of having
been accosted from behind, knocked to the ground, boxed, submerged in water, taken three meters from the
creek, and raped. In view of her positive identification of the accused, it disregarded the defense of alibi set
up by the latter, which it found to be a weak one.

Trial Court: GULITY.

CA: GUILTY. Factual findings of the Trial Court must not be disturbed. CA relied heavily on the trial court for
its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility; the trial judge having the opportunity to observe them on
the stand. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an
informed and reasoned verdict. This rule admits of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached
arbitrarily, when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
weight and substance which could affect the result of the case.

Inconsistencies in the Complainants Testimony The accused failed to elevate this inconsistency to the
level of a major one sufficient to strip the complainant of credibility. Being too trivial, such inconsistency does
not rock the pedestal upon which the complainant's credibility rests. In fact, it enhances her credibility, as it
manifests spontaneity and lack of scheming.

The alibi of the accused thus maintains its weak and impotent state. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it
must establish the physical impossibility for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of
its commission.37 The accused's testimony placing himself somewhere else was corroborated by the
testimony of Wilfredo and Emilia Manzano. But he failed to establish physical impossibility because the alibi
places him within only three kilometers from where the crime was committed, a manageable distance to
travel in a few minutes.

LAYSON vs LAWA

ARSON. Accused Eduardo Leyson, as ranch owner and his farm-hands/cowboys; with intent to destroy
and cause damage and in order to drive away the different complainants from the area of the ranch
cultivated by the complainants, set fire on the thirteen (13) houses one after the other of the
complainants.

Defense: ALIBI.

TRIALCOURT: All accused were CONVICTED; except for LEYSON who was acquitted on the ground of
reasonable doubt.

CA: Trial court decision was AFFIRMED but modified as to the penalty.
Basis for decision: According to the appellate court, the testimony of Batata and Jarmin, corroborated by
Lino Mendi, were credible and entitled to full probative weight. It took into account Leysons admission
that he would pay for the damages sustained by the private complainants. The appellate court rejected
as barren of factual basis the appellants defenses of denial and alibi.

On appeal to SC, Accused argued that the testimonies of Jarmin and Batata have no probative weight.

How so? Because of the following circumstances:

The testimonies of respondent Romeo Jarmin and Bonifacio Batata were inconsistent with the affidavits
given to the police investigators Jarmin failed to mention leyson in his affidavit and that he was not on the
farm when the incident happened. Batata also did not mention leyson in his affidavit; in fact, he never
identified any of petitioners as the perpetrators.

The surface of the canal where they claim to have hidden was covered by three feet cogon grass, and Jarmin
and Batata were only 5 feet and four inches tall. While it is true that Jarmin and Batata fled, jumped into a
canal and hid there while petitioners burned private respondents houses, the foliage or the surface of the
canal did not obstruct their view. Batata is five feet and four inches tall, and the canal was only three feet
deep: (from Q&A portion haha) Accordingly, there were no obstructions from Jarmins vision to the 40
meters distance where he said he saw the accused. They were on the higher plain, so the cogon grass were
never an obstruction to his vision.
OSG: inconsistencies between the testimonies of Jarmin and Batata and their respective affidavits pertain to
minor and peripheral matters, and did not necessarily discredit them.

Leyson is civilly liable because his acquittal was based on reasonable ground only. It points out that
he even obliged himself to pay for the damages sustained by private respondents.

SC: We agree with the rulings of the RTC and the CA that petitioners conspired to burn the houses of private
respondents on September 7, 1996.

The findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA on appeal, are accorded with high respect, if not conclusive
effect by this Court. The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of the witnesses and its calibration of
the probative weight thereof are even conclusive on this Court, absent clear evidence that facts and
circumstances of substance which if considered would alter or reverse the outcome of the case were ignored,
misinterpreted or misconstrued.

The testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety instead of in truncated parts. The technique in
deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said
parts. In ascertaining the facts established by a witness, everything stated by him on direct, cross and redirect
examinations must be calibrated and considered.

The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. NOT strictly applied in this jurisdiction. The doctrine deals
only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and it admits exceptions. The maxim is not
a mandatory rule of evidence, but rather a permissible inference that the court may or may not draw.

The testimony of a witness can be believed as to some facts and disbelieved as to others. Facts
imperfectly or erroneously stated in answer to one question may be supplied or explained as qualified by his
answer to other question. Even when witnesses are found to have deliberately falsified in some material
particulars, it is not required that the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected but such portions
thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited.

The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at the scene of the crime and that he positively
identified [the accused] as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.

The general rule is that inconsistencies and discrepancies between the testimony of a witness in contrast
with what he stated in an affidavit do not necessarily discredit him. Affidavits given to police and barangay
officers are made ex parte and often incomplete or incorrect for lack or absence of sufficient inquiries by the
investigating officer. It is of judicial knowledge that sworn statements are almost incomplete and often
inaccurate and are generally inferior to the testimony of a witness in open court.

Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of the witness relative to minor or peripheral matters and
not to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused from the crime charged or the
elements of such crime are not grounds for the acquittal of the accused.

The contention of LEYSON/petitioner: INCONSISTENCIES AND DISCREPANSIES in the testimonies of the


witnesses. That:
1. Mendis did not actually see the burning of the house because he was not able to return to the area. He
only learned of the burning from Jarmin and Batata. Court said the purpose of Mendis testimony was only to
prove the actual damages sustained by repondents;

2. Jarmin said that Leyson and company burned their houses but Batata said only one of petitioners whose
face he did not actually see burned the houses.

SupremeCourt: The petitioners denials and alibi cannot prevail over the collective positive testimonies of
Jarmin and Batata, who positively and spontaneously pointed to them as the perpetrators at the trial.

Denial and alibi are weak defenses in criminal prosecution: alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove,
while denial is mere self-serving evidence which cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of witnesses who
identified the perpetrators.

In ALIBI, clear and convincing evidence must be adduced to show that petitioners were in a place other than
the situs of the crime when it was committed, such that it was physically impossible for them to have
committed the crime. In this case, it was not impossible for petitioners to rush to the ranch of petitioner
Leyson from his farm which was only 5 to 6 kms away on horseback, arrive there at 10:00 a.m., fire their guns
and burn the houses of private respondents.

Appeal was DENIED. Although Leyson was acquitted for lack of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt., he is to pay respondents as he is civilly liable. And besides, he obliged himself to pay for the damages
sustained by private respondents.

You might also like