people vs enriquez april 20 2001 Facts: The accused-appellant Tomas Enriquez was charged with the crime of murder

for the violent death of Jessie Conlu before the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo City. On October 13, 1979 in the City of Iloilo, the said accused, allegedly stabbed, Jessie Conlu with a double bladed stainless knife, which caused his death. The trial court issued a warrant of arrest against ENRIQUEZ and fixed a bail bond of P30,000 for his provisional liberty. The case was archived because ENRIQUEZ remained at large. Several years thereafter, or on 19 April 1991, ENRIQUEZ was arrested but he filed a habeas corpus case questioning the legality of his arrest and the court declared his arrest illegal and released him. On 6 July 1995, ENRIQUEZ applied for bail, but it was denied. On 8 April 1998.Congressman Gonzalez withdrew the cash bond he posted for ENRIQUEZ. On 29 April 1998, ENRIQUEZ was arrested, but was again released after he posted a cash bond. Rene de la Pea testified that he personally knew ENRIQUEZ because they used to hang around together since 1968. He testified that on 13 October 1979, Rene was working as a stevedore in ILIASCO, a company engaged in arrastre service. At about 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. of 13 October 1979, Rene and his brother Christian were at the Coca-Cola plant located at the corner of Melliza Street and Muelle Loney Street. He noticed ENRIQUEZ, then clad in maong pants and white T- shirt, walking along Melliza Street. Rene also saw JESSIE, who was wearing a white shirt with stripes, walking along Muelle Loney Street and heading towards the direction of ENRIQUEZ. Immediately thereafter, ENRIQUEZ armed with a pointed instrument wrapped with a piece of cloth, ran slowly toward JESSIE and stabbed the latter. JESSIE held his chest, vomited blood and fell to the ground. ENRIQUEZ stared at JESSIE and immediately fled. Rene saw all of these because he was standing at a distance of approximately five meters from ENRIQUEZ and JESSIE. After the incident, Rene continued to perform his work since he expected that somebody would come to aid JESSIE. A policeman by the name of Dignadice, Jr. arrived at the scene of the crime and removed JESSIEs body. Prior to that fateful day, ENRIQUEZ solicited Renes help to kill JESSIE because the latter was having an affair with ENRIQUEZs wife. Rene turned down the request. Romeo Ladrillo also corroborated the testimony of Rene regarding the plan of ENRIQUEZ to kill JESSIE. The trial courts judgment of conviction was primarily based on the testimonial account of Rene de la Pea and Romeo Ladrillo who both witnessed the commission of the crime from a distance of about four to five meters and positively identified ENRIQUEZ as the assailant. The crime was perpetrated in broad daylight, in full view of and within the range of vision of Rene and Romeo who were ENRIQUEZ co-workers and long-time acquaintances. In view of these, the defense of denial and alibi interposed by ENRIQUEZ has no leg to stand on. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered on 8 October 1998 a Decision finding ENRIQUEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death and to indemnify the family of the victim in the amount of P50,000 and to pay the costs. It took into account the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. On 29 October 1998,ENRIQUEZ was arrested and committed to the Provincial Jail of Iloilo City. Issue: Whether the trial court committed an error in convicting the said accused of the charges against him.

Ruling: It is doctrinally settled that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observe their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule admits of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. Unfortunately, ENRIQUEZ has failed to show the presence of any of these exceptions. The conviction of ENRIQUEZ was primarily based on the positive and categorical account of prosecution witnesses Rene de la Pea and Romeo Ladrillo. Their identification of ENRIQUEZ as the assailant was forthright and clear. The defense of alibi interposed by ENRIQUEZ cannot stand in view of his positive testimony of Rene de la Pea and Romeo Ladrillo that he, ENRIQUEZ, was the one who stabbed and killed JESSIE. We have time and again ruled that alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to prove; it can not prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses. The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

people vs roger rama GR no. 136304 january 25 2001 Facts: On January 1, 1988, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, the accused, ROGER RAMA, allegedly kidnapped JOYCE ANN CABIGUIN, a minor, one (1) year and six (6) months old. The prosecution's story was gathered mainly from the testimony of five-year old Roxanne Cabiguin, a cousin of Joyce Ann. On January 1, 1998, Roxanne, her sister Rose Ann, Mama Weng, Uncle Dony, grandmother Diana, Joyce Ann and the latter's younger brother Pogi were at the Dagupan public plaza. Roxanne played with her Uncle Dony, Rose Ann, and Joyce Ann at the plaza's stage while her Mama Weng sat at the side of the stage, feeding Pogi. Mama Diana went to a store to buy some food. At that time, the accused Rama and another man were also at the plaza. Rama called Roxanne and told her that if she would bring the beautiful girl (referring to Joyce Ann) to him, he would give Roxanne a biscuit. Rama gave her one biscuit. She ate it. She then carried Joyce Ann to the accused Rama who ran away with little Joyce Ann. Roxanne told her Mama Weng and Mama Diana that Joyce Ann was taken by a man. They looked for Joyce Ann and the man but they were nowhere to be found. During her testimony, Roxanne pointed to the accused Rama as the man who took away Joyce Ann. Roxanne's testimony was corroborated by Pierre Torio. Diana Laviste Cabiguin, paternal grandmother of Joyce Ann, also testified and it was corroborated by Elvira Sebastian. on January 7, 1998, the police presented the accused Rama and four other persons from their office in a police line-up. Benjamin and Bryan, and three other witnesses, Rose Anne Cabiguin, Jesus Cabiguin, and Andrew Cabiguin, all pointed to the accused Rama as the man who took Joyce Ann. Pictures were taken of Benjamin and Bryan, and Jesus Ulanday pointing to the accused Rama as the man who took away Joyce Ann. The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's story. It convicted the accused Rama and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the parents of the victim the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages and another amount of P20,000.00 as temperate or moderate damages. ISSUE: whether or not the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged. Ruling: the accused points out that since Bryan and Benjamin were not presented as prosecution witnesses, Diana Laviste's claim that these children pointed to the accused as the man who took away Joyce Ann does not bear any weight in evidence. This therefore leaves only the testimony of Roxanne as the basis for the prosecution's identification of the accused Rama as the culprit. The defense contends, however, that Roxanne's testimony, coming from the mouth of a five-year old, does not deserve credit because she could not answer many questions and appeared to have been coached by her grandmother, Diana. The court ruled that the contention of the accused does not hold water in this case. The Rules of Evidence provide in Rule 130, Secs. 20 and 21: "Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. - Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perceptions to others, may be witnesses.

Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. - The following persons cannot be witnesses: xxx (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable pf perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and relating them truthfully." In Dulla v. Court of Appeals and Andrea Ortega, the court held that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined. The requirements then of a child's competency as a witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing, it is setted that the trial court is called upon to make such determination." the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

People vs paraiso January 17, 2001 Facts: On the 5th day of August 1994, at Barangay Olangtao Ilaya, Province of Quezon, the accused Isagani Paraiso, armed with a bolo, allegedly hacked Arlene Recilla, a minor, 13 years of age, killing her, he was also accused of having sexual intercourse with her while she is already unconscious. The Solicitor General through an appellee's brief, related the facts with special emphasis on the witness Benny Reoveros who saw the accused raping the said minor near the Anahaw trees. Said witness reported said incident to the Barangay Captain who immediately went to the place of the incident where they saw said minor already dead.The accused made an alibi wherein he was not anywhere near the place of the crime.The trial court found the accused Isagani Paraiso y Hutalla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with Homicide, and was sentenced to death.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guulty of the crime as charged. Ruling: To supportthe accused's plea for acquittal, he points to alleged flaws in the prosecution evidence: (1) the delay of the eyewitness in identifying the accused as the culprit; (2) the eyewitness false statement during direct examination that accused was his blood-relative while, in truth, they are only related by affinity; and (3) the improbability of the commission of such a crime in broad daylight and within hearing distance of neighboring houses. These circumstances, accused avers, amount to a failure of the prosecution to meet the quantum of evidence required to overcome his innocence. The court found the witness Benny Reoveros to be firm, spontaneous and categorical in his declaration that it was accused Isagani Paraiso whom he saw that afternoon brutally rape and kill Arlene Recilla. The defense of alibi, as a rule, is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellant by a credible eyewitness who has no ill motive to testify falsely. For such defense to prosper, it must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, the testimony of the eyewitness is fully corroborated by the post mortem examination report of municipal health officer Manuel L. Salaveria. The decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED.