Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 132 views

    People of The Philippines Vs Condemena (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Abdulateef Sahibuddin
    This case involved the appeal of Simplicio Aniel who was convicted along with three others for robbery with homicide. [1] Aniel claimed an alibi defense that he was elsewhere during the crime. [2] However, witnesses positively identified Aniel and testimony from his co-defendants named him as participating. [3] Extrajudicial confessions from co-defendants that implicated Aniel were considered circumstantial evidence of his participation, so the court upheld his conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People of The Philippines Vs Condemena (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Abdulateef Sahibuddin
    132 views2 pages
    This case involved the appeal of Simplicio Aniel who was convicted along with three others for robbery with homicide. [1] Aniel claimed an alibi defense that he was elsewhere during the crime. [2] However, witnesses positively identified Aniel and testimony from his co-defendants named him as participating. [3] Extrajudicial confessions from co-defendants that implicated Aniel were considered circumstantial evidence of his participation, so the court upheld his conviction.

    Original Description:

    Remedial Law

    Original Title

    People of the Philippines vs Condemena (1968)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved the appeal of Simplicio Aniel who was convicted along with three others for robbery with homicide. [1] Aniel claimed an alibi defense that he was elsewhere during the crime. [2] However, witnesses positively identified Aniel and testimony from his co-defendants named him as participating. [3] Extrajudicial confessions from co-defendants that implicated Aniel were considered circumstantial evidence of his participation, so the court upheld his conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    132 views2 pages

    People of The Philippines Vs Condemena (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Abdulateef Sahibuddin
    This case involved the appeal of Simplicio Aniel who was convicted along with three others for robbery with homicide. [1] Aniel claimed an alibi defense that he was elsewhere during the crime. [2] However, witnesses positively identified Aniel and testimony from his co-defendants named him as participating. [3] Extrajudicial confessions from co-defendants that implicated Aniel were considered circumstantial evidence of his participation, so the court upheld his conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People of the Philippines vs Condemena (1968)

    Remedial Law: confession, evidence, Rules of Court

    G.R. No. L-22426, May 29, 1968

    23 SCRA 910

    Facts: Pelagio Condemena, Casamero Patino, Ricarido Causing and Simplicio Aniel were
    charged with the crime of robbery in band with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Leyte,
    with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and aggravating circumstances of nocturnity,
    abuse of superior strength and dwelling.

    After trial, the court found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
    robbery in band with homicide without, however, making a finding on any of the aggravating
    circumstances alleged in the information, instead it took into consideration the lack of
    instruction and education in mitigation of their criminal liability. Pending their appeal in this
    Court, Pelagio Condemena, Ricarido Causing and Casamero Patino withdrew their appeal which
    was granted in a resolution. As the record now stands, only Simplicio Aniel remained as the
    appellant.

    Appellant Simplicio Aniel, in exculpation, interposed the defense of alibi. He presented


    Benjamin (Benigno) Corpin, a 73-year old man, who testified that on October 6, 1962, he was in
    the market fair of Celso Muertigue in Wague, Leyte, selling salted fish. His companion on that
    date was Simplicio Aniel whom he hired to help him. The two of them left Considra (or
    Consuegra), Leyte, at 7:00 o’clock in the morning and returned home to Considra from the
    market fair at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day. They arrived together in his house
    at Considra where the two of them took their meals. Then after that, Simplicio Aniel went to his
    house. Aniel’s house was only about 10 to 15 meters away from his home. The defense argued
    that the identification in open court made by Barcelisa Lamoste and her daughter, Esmeralda
    Lamoste, should not have been considered by the that court as a “positive identification” which
    could sustain the conviction of Simplicio Aniel for the crime charged.

    Issue: Whether or not appellant Simplicio Aniel has been sufficiently identified as one of the
    four men who participated in the commission of the crime charged?

    Held: Yes. Well settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is weak where the prosecution
    witnesses positively identified the accused. To prosper such a defense, it must be established by
    clear and convincing evidence and not merely supported by witnesses who bear close ties of
    relationship to the accused. The degree of the evidence trust be such as to preclude any doubt
    that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its
    immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission.

    Barcelisa Lamoste, in the words of the trial judge who had personally seen and observed her
    behavior and manner of testifying on the witness stand, “unhesitantly and unmistakenly”
    pointed to Simplicio Aniel as the person who rushed towards her and pointed his gun, about one
    foot long, at her face, warning her at the same time not to shout or else she will be killed.
    Esmeralda Lamoste substantially corroborated the testimony of her mother. And Crispin
    Bactol’s testimony has demonstrated a circumstance of strong persuasion when he recognized
    Condemena and his companions when they were passing in front of his house. The credibility of
    their testimony was never successfully impugned by the defense whom they were cross-
    examined on the witness stand. No motive was shown by the defense why these witnesses
    should impute so grave a crime to Simplicio Aniel who they did not even know before the crime
    was committed.

    The positive identification of appellant Simplicio Aniel was further bolstered when Pelagio
    Condemena and Casamero Patino, in their sworn statements named Simplicio Aniel as one of
    them in the group when they killed Fermin Lamoste and robbed the house of P200.00 on
    October 6, 1962, at about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

    Extrajudicial confessions, independently made without collusion, which are identical with each
    other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record, are admissible
    as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to show the probability of the latter’s
    actual participation in the commission of the crime. As the Supreme Court decalred:

    While confession of a co-conspirator are not ordinarily admissible as evidence against another
    co-conspirator, the fact that they implicate the latter and were made soon after the
    commission of the crime, is circumstantial evidence to show the probability of their co-
    conspirator having actually participated therein.

    You might also like