Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
On 31 July 1995, petitioner was indicted in an Information for Alona was the daughter of Teodoro. On 29 August 1992, at about
homicide. After consideration of the respective evidence of the 7:30 in the evening, she and her eight-year-old brother delivered
prosecution and defense in a trial proper, the RTC rendered a food to Teodoro at the latters ricefield located at Riverside, Bilar,
Decision on 21 August 1998, convicting the petitioner of homicide Bohol. While she and her brother were at the ricefield, petitioner
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC gave more passed by. They greeted him good evening but the petitioner
credence to the prosecutions version of the facts as narrated by ignored them. Afterwards, Teodoro told her and her younger
eyewitness Rogelio M. Boco (Rogelio). Rogelio testified that on 29 brother to go home because he would guard the source of water in
August 1992, at a distance of five meters, he heard the petitioner the irrigation opening as the owners of the other ricefields might
and Teodoro arguing about the source of water for their respective steal the water by opening the water-gate to allow the water to
ricefields and then saw petitioner subsequently hacking Teodoro. pass through. Alona also recalled that there was one time when the
The RTC also affirmed the corroborative testimonies of five other petitioner passed by their house and told their mother, Josefina, to
prosecution witnesses namely, Dr. Maria Nenita D. Tumanda (Dr. advice the hard-headed Teodoro. Petitioner warned them that
Tumanda), Francisca O. Boco, Alona L. Dordas (Alona), Josefina M. sooner or later he would crush Teodoros head. Josefina was the
Luzano (Josefina) and Fermin Tabel (Fermin). The gist of their wife of Teodoro. She alleged that on 7 July 1992, petitioner and
testimonies is as follows: Teodoro had an altercation regarding the water for their respective
ricefields and that in the first week of August 1992, petitioner ricefields had the same source of water called Logarita. Loreto was a
passed by their house and told her to restrain Teodoro from being barangay councilman in Riverside, Biliran. He claimed that on 10
hard-headed; otherwise he would break his head. June 1992, he settled a dispute between petitioner and Rogelio as
regards their source of water for their respective ricefields. He also
Pathetically, the RTC did not find worthy the testimonies of the presented a document evincing such settlement. CA affirmed in
defense witnesses. substance the RTC decision.
Petitioner insists that he has nothing to do with the death of Petitioner argues that the RTC and the Court of Appeals committed
Teodoro. Petitioner asserts that he had dinner with his wife, Luz, grave abuse of discretion in giving credence to the testimony of
and the latters relatives on the evening of 29 August 1992; that he eyewitness Rogelio since there were grave and irreconcilable
and Luz listened to a radio program and thereafter prayed and inconsistencies in the latters affidavit and court testimony.
slept; and that he did not go out of the house throughout the entire According to petitioner, when Rogelio executed his affidavit and
night of 29 August 1992. Judge Vao was the administering officer for was subjected to a preliminary examination two weeks after the
the affidavit executed by Rogelio. She averred that she had incident, he never mentioned therein that he actually saw the
thoroughly examined Rogelio as to whether the latter clearly hacking of Teodoro by petitioner. It was only during the trial on the
understood all his statements in the said affidavit. Luz, Jaime merits of the instant case that Rogelio for the first time testified
(petitioners brother-in-law), and Francisca (petitioners mother-in-
that he personally witnessed the hacking of Teodoro by petitioner.
law) testified, in essence, that petitioner did not kill Teodoro; that In fact, the RTC narrated in its assailed decision the following set of
they had dinner with the petitioner on the evening of 29 August facts: (1) Rogelio did not mention in his affidavit that he saw the
1992; that after dinner, petitioner and Luz listened to a radio hacking of Teodoro by petitioner; (2) when Rogelio executed and
program and thereafter prayed and slept; that they did not see swore to his affidavit before Judge Vao of the MCTC of Bilar, the
petitioner go out of the house throughout the entire night of 29 latter read to Rogelio the contents of his affidavit in the Visayan
August 1992; that there was no feud between petitioner and
dialect; (3) Rogelio understood the contents of his affidavit and
Teodoro; that Rogelio and Teodoro had the same source of water affixed his signature thereon; (4) the said affidavit contains the
for their respective ricefields; that Rogelio and Teodoro had a entire story of what Rogelio witnessed on 29 August 1992; and (5)
quarrel regarding such source of water; and by reason of the said
from all indications, Rogelio understood the questions of Judge Vao
conflict, Rogelio filed a complaint against petitioner in the barangay which were translated into the Visayan dialect.[17]
hall, a complaint which was, however, subsequently settled.
Petitioner contends that despite the aforementioned narration of
Aquilino (uncle of petitioner) testified that Rogelio had a ricefield facts made by the RTC, the trial court and the Court of Appeals still
which was very near the ricefield of Teodoro, and that these
chose to believe the testimony of Rogelio.
Petitioner further asserts that the RTC and the Court of Appeals and that the aforesaid circumstance shows the biased nature of the
failed to consider the ill motive which Rogelio harbored against assailed RTC decision.[18]
petitioner and Teodoro; that the assailed decisions of the RTC and
the Court of Appeals are described in legal circles as speculative The contentions are devoid of merit.
conviction; that Rogelios testimony that he does not usually gather Petitioners rantings on the supposed ill motive which Rogelio had
tuba at nighttime is inconsistent with his own testimony that he was against him deserve scant consideration. The existence of a grudge
gathering tuba on the night he witnessed the incident; that the RTC does not automatically render the testimony of a witness false and
erred in finding that Rogelio did not immediately report the incident unreliable.[25] Further, it should be noted that the conflict between
to the police because he had already informed Josefina, wife of petitioner and Rogelio was already settled before their Barangay
Teodoro, and it was Josefina who informed the police, as there was Council.[26] Motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt
no evidence showing that she made such report to the police; that as to the identity of the culprit.[27] In the instant case, the
Rogelios testimony that the first person he informed about the imputation of ill motive is already inconsequential as Rogelio
incident was his neighbor, Jesus Quimpan (Jesus), has no basis since personally witnessed the hacking of Teodoro by petitioner.
Jesus was never presented as a witness by the prosecution; that
Rogelio made a false testimony when he narrated that he clearly The inconsistencies in the testimony of Rogelio cited by petitioner
saw the incident because of the moonlight; that the calendar year refer to minor and insignificant details which do not impair the
for August 1992 shows that the full moon was on 13 August, the last credibility of Rogelio as a witness. Rogelio did not categorically
quarter was on 21 August, and new moon on 28 August 1992; that testify that there was never an instance when he gathered tuba at
the RTC found that Rogelio had merely heard the quarrel between nighttime. He merely stated that he does not usually gather tuba at
petitioner and Teodoro, and that he had not actually seen the nighttime;[28] thus, he does not preclude the possibility that, on the
hacking; that the jurisprudence which states that the trial courts day of the incident, Rogelio opted to gather tuba at night rather
findings are entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to than during daytime. Besides, what is vital is that Rogelio specifically
observe the demeanor of witnesses and, therefore, was in a better testified in court that he was gathering tuba on the night he saw the
position to appraise their credibility does not apply in the present petitioner hack Teodoro.
case on the ground that the bulk of the evidence for the
In support of his contention that Rogelio did not clearly see the
prosecution, including the entire testimony of Rogelio, was not
hacking incident as there was no moonlight at that time, petitioner
personally heard by Judge Calibo; that Judge Calibo used to be a
presented the calendar year for August 1992 which shows that the
subordinate of the fiscal in charge of the instant case and who had
full moon was on 13 August, the last quarter was on 21 August and
engaged the defense counsel in heated arguments during the trial;
the new moon on 28 August.[29] This circumstance does not carry
much weight since Rogelio was merely five meters away from the retired, transferred, and so forth. Relative thereto, we have held in
petitioner and Teodoro when he heard the two arguing and then several cases that the fact that the judge who heard the evidence is
saw petitioner subsequently hacking Teodoro. Moreover, Rogelio not the one who rendered the judgment; and that for the same
was very familiar with the physical features[30] and voices of reason, the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the
petitioner and Teodoro because the petitioners wife is his relative, demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the
and both petitioner and Teodoro also reside in Riverside, Biliran. records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous.[33]
Even though the judge who penned the decision was not the judge
Indeed, the discrepancies in Rogelios testimony do not damage the
who heard the testimonies of the witnesses, such is not enough
essential integrity of the prosecutions evidence in its material reason to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court on the
whole. Instead, the discrepancies only erase suspicion that the credibility of witnesses.[34] It may be true that the trial judge who
testimony was rehearsed or concocted. These honest conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the
inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than destroy Rogelios truth or falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, but it does not
credibility.[31] necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial
It may be true that no evidence was adduced in support of Rogelios cannot render a valid and just decision.[35] The efficacy of a
testimony that it was Josefina who reported the incident to the decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its writer only
police and that Jesus, his neighbor, was the first person he informed took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial.[36]
about the incident. However, proofs of these allegations are not That a judge did not hear a case does not necessarily render him
necessary in view of the candid and straightforward testimony of less competent in assessing the credibility of witnesses. He can rely
Rogelio, as corroborated by five other prosecution witnesses. Truly, on the transcripts of stenographic notes of their testimony and
an accused may be convicted on the sole basis of the positive and calibrate them in accordance with their conformity to common
credible testimony of an eyewitness.[32] experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such
reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of
Petitioner draws attention to the fact that Judge Calibo did not hear law.[37]
the bulk of the prosecutions evidence, including the entire
testimony of Rogelio, and hence, did not have the opportunity to As is herein, Judge Calibo did not merely rely on the records of the
observe the demeanor of the witness. case, such as transcripts of stenographic notes and relevant
documents, in rendering his decision. In addition thereto, he also
It is not unusual for a judge who did not wholly try a case to decide conducted an ocular inspection of the scene of the crime in order to
it on the basis of the records on hand after the trial judge who had evaluate the veracity of Rogelios testimony.[38]
heard almost entirely the testimony of the witnesses died, resigned,
Petitioner also tries to discredit the court testimonies of Francisca preliminary examination, and when her affidavit was taken, she was
Boco, Josefina (Teodoros wife), and Alona (Teodoros daughter). still in the state of sorrow and her mindset was still unstable.
According to petitioner, the testimonies of Francisca Boco and
Josefina are mere afterthoughts, for they never executed any The fact that Josefina and Alona were the wife and daughter,
affidavits in connection with the instant case. As regards Alona, her respectively, of Teodoro, makes their testimonies more credible, as
testimony was practically nil, considering that there are some facts it would be unnatural for a relative interested in vindicating a crime
which she deliberately omitted in her affidavit. done to their family to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.
As to Alona, it appears that, really, she omitted some facts in her Denial is inherently a weak defense as it is negative and self-serving.
affidavit. However, this does not necessarily negate her testimony It cannot prevail over the positive identification and testimonies of
since she was able to satisfactorily explain the reason for such witnesses unless buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.
omission, thus: Corollarily, alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to
contrive and difficult to disprove. For alibi to prosper, it is not
Upon cross-examination, she [Alona] declared that she executed an enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when
affidavit in connection with this case. However, there are some facts the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was
which she deliberately omitted in her affidavit. The fact that Nestor physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its
passed by their house and forewarned her mother to stop her
immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[44]
father otherwise he would crush his head, and the fact that when
accused passed by, she said Good evening but the accused did not Thus, even assuming that petitioner was sleeping in their bedroom
answer, were not mentioned in her affidavit because during the throughout the entire night of 29 August 1992, it was not physically
impossible for him to be at the crime scene which was in a canal BAYANI v. PEOPLE
near Riverside, Bilar, Bohol, on the night of the incident. The
distance between the house of his parents-in-law where he slept, FULLERO v. PEOPLE
and the canal where the hacking took place, is merely 100 DYING DECLARATION
meters.[45] Obviously, he could easily reach the canal at any time to
perpetrate the crime charged. PEOPLE v. CERILLA
As the petitioner failed to substantiate his defenses of denial and RES GESTAE
alibi, the positive and credible testimonies of Rogelio and the rest of
PEOPLE v. PADUA
the prosecution witnesses must prevail.
PEOPLE v. RENTORIA
GO v. LOOYUKO
ADMISSION
SABANG v. PEOPLE
CAPANGPANGAN v. PEOPLE
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
OCA v. CUNTING
CONFESSION
PEOPLE v. RAPESA
HEARSAY
PEOPLE v. GUMIMBA