Notes.

—The presumption that police officers involved in

buy-bust operations have performed their duties regularly
can only be overcome through clear and convincing
evidence that shows either of two things: (1) that they were
not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were
inspired by any improper motive. (People vs. Sanchez, 528
SCRA 594 [2007])
Any objection concerning the issuance or service of a
warrant or a procedure in the acquisition by the court of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is
deemed waived. (Buenaventura vs. People, 529 SCRA 500
[2007])

——o0o——

G.R. No. 172869. July 28, 2008.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DONATO

BULASAG y ARELLANO alias “DONG,” appellant.

Criminal Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Identification by the

sound of the voice as well as familiarity with the physical features
of a person are sufficient and acceptable means of identification
where it is established that the witness and the accused had
known each other personally and closely for a number of years.—
The evidence on record shows that appellant and Estelita have
been neighbors for quite some time. In fact, their families were so
close that appellant even allowed Estelita to tap electrical
connection from his house. Thus, although appellant wore a
bonnet over his face to conceal his identity, Michael could still
recognize his voice since Michael already gained familiarity with
his voice and physical features. In fact, Michael described
appellant’s voice as “low tone.” As this Court has ruled in earlier
cases, identification by the sound of the voice as well as
familiarity with the physical features of a person are sufficient
and acceptable means of identification where it is established that

_______________
 * SECOND DIVISION.

246

the witness and the accused had known each other personally and
closely for a number of years.
Alibis and Denials; Nothing is more settled in criminal law
jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the
positive and categorical testimony of the witness.—Nothing is
more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and
alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of
the witness. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must
be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit
credibility. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed
with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be
fabricated. For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only
that he was at some other place when the crime was committed
but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus
criminis at the time of its commission. Appellant’s own evidence
shows that he was in the immediate environs when the incident
occurred. For he stated that he was just in his own house, barely
three meters away from the house of the victim, Estelita.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  The Solicitor General for appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for appellant.

QUISUMBING, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated January 13,
2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.–H.C. No.
00183, which had affirmed the Decision2 dated May 10,
2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Balayan,
Batangas. The trial court had found appellant Donato
Bulasag y

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-

Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Vicente
S.E. Veloso concurring.
2 Records, pp. 170-183. Penned by Executive Judge Elihu A. Ybañez.

247

Arellano alias “Dong,” guilty of the special complex crime of

robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 4850.
 The Information dated December 22, 2000, charging
appellant and his co-accused with the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide, defined and penalized
under Article 294(1)3 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659,4 reads as follows:

“x x x x
That on or about the 27th day of July, 2000 at about 10:30
o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Caloocan, Municipality of
Balayan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused, Donato Bulasag
armed with an unlicensed firearm of unknown caliber together
with one John Doe and one Peter Doe whose identities and
whereabouts are still unknown, armed with knives (kutsilyo),
conspiring and confederating together, acting in common accord
and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain and
without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house
owned by Estelita Bascuguin y Besas and by means of violence or
intimidation against person, take, rob and carry away cash money
amounting to more or less Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00),
Philippine Currency and assorted pieces of jewelry, to the damage
and prejudice of the said owner in the aforementioned amount of
P20,000.00 and that on the occasion and by reason of the said
robbery, the said accused with intent to kill, did then and there

_______________

3  Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons—

Penalties.—Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed;
or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation or arson;
x x x x
4 An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending
for That Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, As Amended, Other Special Penal
Laws, and For Other Purposes, approved on December 13, 1993.

248

willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault[,] stab and

shoot with the said weapons one Estelita Bascuguin y Besas,
thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds and stab
wounds on her chest, which directly caused her death.
Contrary to law.”5
 Only appellant was arrested by the police authorities
while the others remained at large. Upon arraignment,
appellant pleaded not guilty.
The facts as found by the trial court and confirmed by
the Court of Appeals, were gleaned from the testimonies of
(1) Lydia B. Siervo, the sister of the victim Estelita B.
Bascuguin; (2) Michael B. Bascuguin, the eight-year-old
son of the victim; and (3) Dr. Antonio S. Vertido, Regional
Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation, Region 4, Batangas.
Lydia Siervo testified that one week before the incident,
Estelita told her that she had an altercation with the
appellant. Appellant tried to borrow P3,000 but Estelita
refused to give him the money. As a result, appellant
threatened Estelita that something bad will happen to her
if she will not leave her house. Lydia added that Estelita
had no misunderstanding with other people except the
appellant.6
Michael Bascuguin testified that at around 10:30 p.m. of
July 27, 2000, he was watching television inside their
house with his mother and cousin, Luisito Besas. When his
mother was about to close the door of their house, the lights
suddenly went off and somebody kicked the door open.
Three men wearing bonnets over their faces entered their
house. One man, later identified as the appellant, had a
gun while another carried a kitchen knife. Together they
held Estelita. Although Michael tried to get out of the
house, appellant chased and hogtied him. Appellant then
demanded money from Estelita threatening to kill Michael
if she refused. Estelita gave appellant an undetermined
amount of money.

_______________

5 Records, pp. 1-2.

6 TSN, April 24, 2002, pp. 4-6; TSN, May 7, 2002, pp. 3, 5, 8-9.

249

Since appellant refused to release Michael, Estelita ran out

of the house and told Michael to run also. Appellant shot
Estelita while one of his companions stabbed her.
Thereafter, appellant and his companions fled. Michael
sought help from their neighbor, Jenneath, the appellant’s
wife, but she initially refused since there was no available
vehicle. Later, they found a vehicle and went to the house
of Tatay Pecto, Estelita’s common-law husband, and
informed him of what happened to Estelita. They then
proceeded to the police station to report the incident.7
Dr. Antonio S. Vertido testified and confirmed his
findings as stated in the Certificate of Post-Mortem
Examination8 that Estelita died of gunshot and stab
wounds on the chest.9
Appellant Donato Bulasag denied the accusations
against him. He testified that on the date of the incident,
he attended the birthday celebration of his nephew, Jorge
Bautista. They started drinking at 10:00 a.m. At 7:00 p.m.,
he and Hilario Arellano left his nephew’s house and
proceeded to the house of his uncle, Rolando Holgado, to
continue drinking. They stayed there for 30 minutes until
his wife, Jenneath, arrived to fetch him. Instead of going
home, they went to his parents’ house. Between 8:00 p.m.
to 9:00 p.m., his brother Filomeno and his wife Anita
brought them home. Upon arriving home, he slept.10
Jenneath Bulasag testified that at the time of the
incident, appellant was at home sleeping. She said that
appellant was drunk at that time after attending his
nephew’s birthday celebration. She claimed that she never
lost sight of him that evening.11
On May 10, 2004, the trial court convicted appellant.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

_______________

7  TSN, July 24, 2002, pp. 4-7, 9-11.

8  Records, p. 9.
9  TSN, January 29, 2003, pp. 5, 7-10.
10 TSN, February 5, 2003, pp. 6-10, 13.
11 TSN, February 12, 2003, pp. 3-4, 8.

250

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the

accused Donato Bulasag y Arellano alias “Dong” GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294(1) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act [No.] 7659, and
is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties and to pay the
costs. He is also hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Estelita
Bascuguin y Besas the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as indemnity in line with current jurisprudence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.”12
 Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On January 13, 2006,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the trial
court. It observed that all the elements of the crime of
robbery with homicide were present in the case. It noted
that appellant’s identity was duly established by Michael’s
positive identification, hence it disregarded appellant’s
denial and alibi.
Dissatisfied, appellant appealed to this Court. As
appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General opted not
to submit supplemental briefs, we shall now review the
decision of the Court of Appeals, focusing on the following
issues brought before it:

I.
THE TRIAL COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
SCANT CONSIDERATION TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S
ALIBI.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD ESTABLISHED BEYOND
REA-

_______________

12 Records, p. 183.

251

SONABLE DOUBT THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT AS THE AUTHOR OF THE CRIME CHARGED.13

Briefly stated, the principal issue is whether the guilt of

appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Subsidiarily, for our resolution are: (1) Did the
prosecution sufficiently prove appellant’s identity as the
author of the crime? (2) Did the trial court err in
disregarding appellant’s denial and alibi?
Appellant contends that his identity was proven only by
circumstantial evidence. Michael did not see the face of the
man who chased him and shot his mother because the man
wore a bonnet over his face. Thus, there was doubt whether
the man was really appellant or somebody else. While
Michael testified that he recognized appellant’s voice,
physical features and gun, he also admitted that he did not
talk often with him. There was doubt therefore whether he
was in a position to identify appellant’s voice during the
incident. Appellant insists that he was so drunk at the time
of the incident that it was impossible for him to commit the
crime. He contends that his wife corroborated his
testimony.
Appellee counters that appellant’s identity was
sufficiently established. Although appellant wore a bonnet
over his face, Michael was able to identify his voice,
physical features and the gun used. Michael was familiar
with appellant’s voice and physical features since they have
been neighbors for quite some time before the incident. In
fact, their families were so close that appellant even
allowed Estelita to tap electrical connection from his house.
Michael was also able to identify appellant by means of his
gun because he has previously seen appellant carry it three
times before the incident. The witness stated that he saw
appellant fire it once in front of their house. Appellee
discredits appellant’s alibi since it was not physically
impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Additionally,
appellee contends that appellant’s testimony was

_______________

13 Rollo, pp. 7-8.

252

corroborated insufficiently since only his wife, who was

obviously a biased witness, did so.
After weighing the parties’ conflicting testimonies and
other evidence, we are in agreement that there is no reason
to reverse appellant’s conviction.
First, we find Michael’s testimony consistent to the
minutest detail, and his categorical identification of
appellant as the assailant is unwavering. Also we see no
reason to doubt his credibility.
The evidence on record shows that appellant and
Estelita have been neighbors for quite some time. In fact,
their families were so close that appellant even allowed
Estelita to tap electrical connection from his house.14 Thus,
although appellant wore a bonnet over his face to conceal
his identity, Michael could still recognize his voice since
Michael already gained familiarity with his voice and
physical features. In fact, Michael described appellant’s
voice as “low tone.”15
As this Court has ruled in earlier cases, identification by
the sound of the voice16 as well as familiarity with the
physical features17 of a person are sufficient and acceptable
means of identification where it is established that the
witness and the accused had known each other personally
and closely for a number of years.
Noteworthy, Michael was able to recognize the gun used
by the malefactor. Michael testified that he had previously
seen appellant carry it three times before the incident. He
also saw appellant fire the gun once in front of their
house.18 Worth stressing, appellant never denied
ownership or possession of such gun.

_______________

14 TSN, February 5, 2003, p. 14.

15 TSN, July 24, 2002, p. 13.
16 People v. Prieto, G.R. No. 141259, July 18, 2003, 406 SCRA 620, 631.
17  People v. Arellano, G.R. No. 131518, October 17, 2000, 343 SCRA
276, 286.
18 TSN, July 24, 2002, p. 7.

253

Taking into account all the circumstances of this case,

this Court finds credible and sufficient Michael’s
identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
When there is no evidence to indicate that the witness
against the accused has been actuated by any improper
motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude
otherwise, the testimony given by a witness is ordinarily
accorded full faith and credit.19
Second, we find appellant’s defenses founded on denial
and alibi lacking in truth and candor. Despite his stance
that he went to his nephew’s birthday celebration where he
met with several persons to drink gin on the day of the
incident, appellant failed to present any disinterested
witness to support his claim. Thus, for corroboration we are
left to rely only on the testimony of his wife, which we find
less than convincing.
Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence
than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive
and categorical testimony of the witness. Denial is an
intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with
strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Alibi
is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with
suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be
fabricated.20 For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not
only that he was at some other place when the crime was
committed but that it was physically impossible for him to
be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.21
Appellant’s own evidence shows that he was in the
immediate environs when the incident occurred. For he
stated that he was just in his own house, barely three
meters away from the house of the victim, Estelita.22

_______________

19 People v. Avendaño, G.R. No. 137407, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA
309, 324.
20  People v. Penaso, G.R. No. 121980, February 23, 2000, 326 SCRA
311, 320.
21 People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 134762, July 23, 2002, 385 SCRA 38,
51.
22 TSN, February 5, 2003, p. 14.

 
254

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated

January 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.–
H.C. No. 00183, which had sustained the Decision dated
May 10, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9,
Balayan, Batangas, finding appellant Donato Bulasag y
Arellano alias “Dong” guilty of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 4850, is
AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ.,

concur.

Appeal denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.—The credibility given by trial courts to

prosecution witnesses is an important aspect of evidence
which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique
opportunity to observe them, particularly their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude, during the direct and cross-
examination by counsels. (People vs. Malngan, 503 SCRA
294 [2006])
Denial and alibi are the weakest defenses of all—they
cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal
identification of the accused by the principal witnesses.
(Gulmatico vs. People, 536 SCRA 82 [2007])
Positive and forthright declarations of the witnesses are
often held to be worthier of credence than the self-serving
denial of the accused. The trial court’s evaluation of the
testimony is accorded great respect and finality in the
absence of any indication that it overlooked certain facts or
circumstances of weight and influence, which if
reconsidered, would alter the result of the case. (Anilao vs.
People, 536 SCRA 98 [2007])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.