Positive vs.

Negative Evidence; Alibi

THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 190798 [781 SCRA 291] January 27, 2016
RONALD IBAÑEZ, EMILIO IBAÑEZ, and DANIEL "BOBOT"
IBAÑEZ, Petitioners,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: Petitioners were charged of frustrated homicide for the reason that
they inflicted mortal wounds to Rodolfo Lebria committed by means of
stabbing, stoning, and hitting of shovel. The prosecution’s witnesses (a police
investigator, the victim’s wife and daughter) identified the petitioners as the
perpetrator of the crime. Meanwhile, the accused petitioners never presented
any witnesses. Ronald and Bobot contended that they never stabbed the
victim; instead, they are the ones stabbed by the victim as evidenced by
their medical certificate presented to the Court almost 5 years from the
occurrence of the incident. For his part, Emilio argued that he was one
kilometer away from the site on that fateful night of incident, hence it is
hardly possible for him to participate in the incident.

Issue: WON the petitioners are guilty of frustrated homicide.

Held: Yes, they are guilty of the crime charged.

Jurisprudence has it, between an affirmative assertion which has a ring of

truth to it and a general denial, the former generally prevails. Alibi is also an
inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive identification of
the witnesses of the petitioners as perpetrators of the crime.

Here, the prosecution witnesses clearly identified the accused without any
hint of hesitation or sign of untruthfulness, while the accused presented no
witnesses. Instead, they merely presented self-serving testimonies. For one,
Bobot and Ronald’s allegation that they were stabbed by the victim for which
reason they fought back were unconvincing since their medical certificate
were only presented as evidenced only after almost 5 years has elapsed from
the occurrence of the incident. Besides, it is contrary to human experience
that Ronald who is the father of Bobot to leave the latter in middle of the
altercation facing danger to be stabbed by the victim, to ask for assistance
from the Police Precinct. Normally, a father will never leave his son on that
scenario. As to Emilio’s alibi, such is also incredible. In order for the defense
of alibi to prosper, the petitioner must not only prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the
offense, but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of
the incident. In this case, Emilio’s contention failed to meet the physical
impossibility requirement.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated September 25,

2009 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 31285
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners RONALD IBAÑEZ,
EMILIO IBAÑEZ and DANIEL "BOBOT" IBAÑEZ are found guilty of
frustrated homicide and sentenced to a prison term of six (6) years of prision
correccional,  as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor,  as maximum. They are also ordered to pay RODOLFO
LEBRIA Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages
and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as moral damages. SO ORDERED.