Opinion Rule

People vs Abriol; PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL, MACARIO ASTELLERO, and JANUARIO DOSDOS
GR 123137, October 17, 2001
Facts: Accused was convicted of the crime of murder. During trial, he contested the qualifications of the expert
witness particularly that of Caser, for allegedly being ignorant of the ballistic equipments used, not being
well versed in ballistics and for not being able to identify the caliber of the bullet.

Issue: Is the expert witness qualified?

Held: An expert witness is "one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of the
inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an
opinion." There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or knowledge that a witness
must possess in order to testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the following factors be present: (1)
training and education; (2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and (3) presentation
of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based. The question of whether a witness is properly
qualified to give an expert opinion on ballistics rests with the discretion of the trial court. We agree with
the trial court that P/Inspector Caser qualifies as a ballistics expert. He is a licensed criminologist, trained
at the Ballistics Command and Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Crame, and in the National Bureau of Investigation. He had previously testified as an expert witness in at
least twenty-seven (27) murder and homicide cases all over the country. An expert witness need not
present comparative microphotographs of test bullets and cartridges to support his findings. Examination
under a comparison microscope showing that the test bullet and the evidence bullet both came from the
same gun is sufficient. Moreover, the ballistician conclusively found similar characteristic markings in the
evidence, test cartridges and slugs.

PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL, GR No. 123137, 2001-10-17

Facts:
That on or about the 5th day of June, 1993, at about 11:50 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with handguns, conniving and confederating together
and mutually helping one... another, with treachery and evident premeditation, with deliberate intent, with intent
to kill, did then and there shot one Alejandro Flores alias Alex with the said handguns, hitting him on the different
parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him the following physical... injuries:
CARDIO RESPIRATORY ARREST DUE TO SHOCK AND HEMORRHAGE SECONDARY TO MULTIPLE GUNSHOT WOUNDS
TO THE TRUNK AND THE HEAD... as a consequence of which the said Alejandro Flores alias Alex died later.
Appellant Astellero was a former prisoner at BBRC, who had served time for grave threats.[4] The warden then,
Chief Inspector Navales,[5] employed him as his personal driver and general factotum.
Abriol and Dosdos... enjoyed special privileges at BBRC as the warden's errand boys[8] or "trustees."
Alejandro Flores alias "Alex," was a former policeman. He was dismissed from the PNP in August 1992 after testing
positive for prohibited drugs
While the patrol cars were chasing the "Jiffy," another police team proceeded to the crime scene in response to
the alarm. This team from Police Station No. 3 in San Nicolas, Cebu City rushed the victim to the Cebu City Medical
Center, where he was pronounced dead on... arrival. Meanwhile, PO3 Celso Seville, Jr., a homicide investigator of
Police Station No. 3 found four (4) .45 caliber shells some four (4) feet away from the victim's body, and two (2)
deformed slugs where the victim had lain, and submitted them to the Region 7 PNP Crime
Laboratory for ballistics testing... appellants underwent a paraffin test. The hands of appellants were found
positive for gunpowder residues. A chemistry test on the firearms showed that the three handguns were also
positive.
The widow and relatives of the victim testified on the possible motive behind the killing. They claimed the victim, a
confessed drug user, may have been "rubbed out" on the orders of Navales for failure to remit P31,000 as
proceeds from pushing prohibited drugs. After... failing to deliver the drug money to Navales, for whom he was
repeatedly pushing drugs, the victim went into hiding, but later returned to Cebu City because he missed his
family.[17]
Appellants deny the accusations.
The defense also presented Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, medico-legal officer of the Cebu City PNP Command, to testify on
the caliber of the firearms which might have caused the gunshot wounds of the victim.
Dr. Cerna testified that it was impossible to determine the caliber of the... firearm used.[24]

Issues:
issue is whether the prosecution's evidence, which is mainly circumstantial, suffices to convict appellants for
murder and violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:
First, eyewitness Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr., did not personally identify them as the culprits. At no point in his testimony
did eyewitness Sta. Cruz, Jr., positively identify any of the appellants or appellant Abriol as the gunman.
Since the sole eyewitness could not identify the gunman and his companions, the prosecution relied on
circumstantial evidence from which the trial court could draw its findings and conclusion of culpability.[26]
Circumstantial evidence may be relied upon,... as in this case, when to insist on direct testimony would result in
setting felons free.
Second, appellants assert that the paraffin tests are judicially recognized as unreliable and inconclusive. A paraffin
test could establish the presence or absence of nitrates on the hand. However, it cannot establish that the source
of the nitrates was the... discharge of firearms. Nitrates are also found in substances other than gunpowder. A
person who tests positive may have handled one or more substances with the same positive reaction for nitrates
such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco,... and leguminous plants. Hence, the presence
of nitrates should only be taken as an indication of a possibility that a person has fired a gun.[27] However, it must
be borne in mind that appellants were not convicted on the sole basis of the paraffin... test.
Since no firearm smaller than a .38 caliber pistol was seized from appellants, they claim the observation of Dr.
Cerna only shows that they could not have shot the victim.
The Office of the Solicitor General points out that Dr. Diola's testimony is supported by Dr. Pedro P. Solis, a
medical expert,... Such expert opinions disprove appellants' theory that the .45 caliber handguns confiscated from
them could not have been used in killing the victim.
appellants allege that the testimony of P/Inspector Lemuel Caser, the prosecution's ballistics expert, clearly shows
that: (1) He is ignorant about such ballistics instruments such as the micrometer, goniometer, and pressure barrel.
[35] (2)
He is not conversant with "the required references concerning ballistics," particularly books on the subject by
foreign authorities.[36] (3) He could not "scientifically determine the caliber of a bullet."
We agree with the trial court that P/Inspector Caser qualifies as a ballistics expert. He is a licensed criminologist,
trained at the Ballistics Command and Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Crame, and in the National Bureau of Investigation. He had previously testified as an expert witness in at least
twenty-seven (27) murder and homicide cases all over the country.
Fifth, appellants aver that the prosecution failed to show any plausible motive for appellants to kill the victim. The
prosecution tried to prove that their co-accused Navales instigated them to kill the victim because Navales had a
grudge against him.
However, as Navales was acquitted, appellants insist that Navales' acquittal should redound to their benefit since
no motive was imputed on their part.
Navales and the victim, a former BBRC jailguard, were associates in dealing with prohibited drugs, until they had a
falling out allegedly after the victim failed to remit to Navales proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs amounting to
P31,000. Appellants apparently killed the victim to return the "special favors" Navales had showered them. Lack
of a motive does not necessarily preclude conviction. Persons have been killed or... assaulted for no reason at all,
and friendship or even relationship is no deterrent to the commission of a crime.
However, minor lapses do not mean that the State had failed to show an unbroken chain of custody of the subject
firearms and ammunition, nor that said firearms and... ammunition were tampered. The slugs and spent shells
recovered from the scene of the crime and the victim's corpse were plainly identified in open court by the PNP
investigators.
...PO3 Rustela who was nearby, immediately ran to the scene of the crime and met the red jiffy with three persons
on board, that speedily passed by him proceeding towards Leon Kilat Street. Car 208 readily picked up the trail and
pursued the red jiffy from Leon Kilat, then making abrupt turns on downtown streets until other patrol cars joined
the chase and captured them in Lahug, near the BBRC. The identity of the red jiffy was never interrupted.
Instead of stopping, Abriol ordered Astellero to accelerate their speed. Their obvious purpose was to elude the
patrol cars. Flight is indicative of guilt.[
These unbroken chain of events prove not only appellants' identities but also their participation and collective
responsibility in the murder of Alejandro Flores. They reveal a unity of purpose and concerted action evidencing
their conspiracy to kill him. Against... this matrix of facts and circumstances, appellants' bare denials cannot stand.
Their story of chasing a red "Jiffy" is merely a disingenuous diversion of no evidentiary value for the defense.
Concerning treachery, however, it was shown that: (1) the means of execution employed gave the person attacked
no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted.[55] These twin requisites... were adequately proved.
Appellants had superiority in numbers and weapons. The victim was without any means to defend himself as no
weapon was found or even intimated to be in his possession. The victim was running away from the "Jiffy" prior to
the killing. That he was warned or... threatened earlier is of no moment. Even when the victim is warned of
danger to his person, if the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate, treachery can still be appreciated.[56] The victim was... lying prostrate on the ground when he was
deliberately and mercilessly riddled with bullets.
No doubt there was treachery.
In this case, the warrantless search and seizure of the subject handguns and ammunition is valid for two reasons.
It was a search incidental to a lawful arrest. It was made after a fatal shooting, and pursuit of a fast-moving vehicle
seeking to elude pursuing police... officers, and a more than reasonable belief on the part of the police officers that
the fleeing suspects aboard said vehicle had just engaged in criminal activity.
Appellant Abriol is not licensed to hold any firearm; that the .45 caliber pistols were unlicensed; and that a
certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm,
proves beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal... possession of firearm.[67]
Appellants are thus guilty only of murder with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms.
The imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua cannot however be... modified since the murder took place
before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659.
Appellants Albert Abriol, Macario Astellero, and Januario Dosdos are hereby found GUILTY of murder, qualified by
treachery, with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms and are hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided for by law. Appellants Abriol,...
Astellero, and Dosdos are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Alejandro Flores the sum of
P50,000 as death indemnity, P20,000 as temperate damages, P10,000 as exemplary damages, and P30,000 as
attorney's fees, as well as the costs.

Bautista vs CA
LAURA and ERIBERTO BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FERNANDO MORELOS,
respondents.
GR 158015, August 11, 2004
Facts: Respondent filed a case for the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale entered into by petitioner and
respondent’s predecessor-in-interest. Respondent presented an expert witness who testified those he
signatures contained in the deed were forged. Petitioner, on the other hand, presented one of the
witnesses to the execution of the deed of sale. The trial court dismissed the case but the CA reversed the
decision.
The dispute involves a parcel of land situated along Maceda (formerly Washington) Street, Sampaloc,
Manila. Cesar is the uncle of petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista.
Cesar died of cardiac arrest on April 15, 1982. During his lifetime, Cesar sold and conveyed the above-
mentioned parcel of land in favor of petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista, as evidenced by a Deed of
Absolute Sale.
Respondent Fernando Morelos, claiming to be the illegitimate child of Cesar Morelos with Angelina Lim-
Gue, instituted a complaint for the declaration of nullity of sale and title.
At the trial, he presented testimonies of expert witnesses who claimed that the signature of Cesar
Morelos on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint appearing on his Residence Certificate were not
his.
Trial court rendered judgment declaring the deed of sale valid but CA reversed, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether the findings of an expert witness is conclusive?

Held: A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. Although such
testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of
the signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the mere testimony of the handwriting expert. The
authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions concerning, e.g.,
quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a highly technical nature.
The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a questioned signature is certainly much less
compelling upon a judge than an opinion rendered by a specialist on a highly technical issue.
In the case at bar, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and fraud.
As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was physically present at the
signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof, the testimony of an expert witness
constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best. Carmelita Marcelino, the witness to the Deed of
Absolute Sale, confirmed the genuineness, authenticity and due execution thereof. Having been physically
present to see the decedent Cesar Morelos and petitioner Laura Bautista affix their signatures on the
document; the weight of evidence preponderates in favor of petitioners.
 A notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed and has in
its favor the presumption of regularity. The authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale
must therefore be upheld.
As to the alleged insufficient consideration of the sale of the property, the mere inadequacy of the price
does not affect its validity when both parties are in a position to form an independent judgment
concerning the transaction, unless fraud, mistake or undue influence indicative of a defect in consent is
present. A contract may consequently be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent and not due to the
inadequacy of the price. In the case at bar, however, no evidence to prove fraud, mistake or undue
influence indicative of vitiated consent was presented other than the respondents self-serving allegations.
People vs Duranan
GR 134074-75, January 16, 2001
Facts: Accused was convicted of raping a mentally retarded woman. Accused contends that there were no
findings that the victim was insane or otherwise retarded because no expert witness was presented. Only
the mother of the victim testified as to the sanity of the victim.
Issue: Is expert testimony necessary to ascertain the mental capacity of the witness?
Held: Rule 130, sec. 50 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides: Opinion of Ordinary witnesses: The opinion of
a witness for which proper basis is given may be received in evidence regarding: a. the identify of a person
about whom he has adequate knowledge; b. a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and; c.
the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. The mother of an offended party in
case of rape, though not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental condition of the party, how
she was born, what she is suffering from, and what her attainments are, is competent to testify on the
matter. It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of
a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and
conduct of the person in question. Generally, it is required that the witness details the factors and reasons
upon which he bases his opinion before he can testify as to what it is. As the Supreme Court of Vermont
said: "A non-expert witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of another, when based upon
conversations or dealings which he has had with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact
bearing upon his mental condition, with the witness' own knowledge and observation, he having first
testified to such conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed facts, as the basis for his opinion.

Character Evidence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.  RAFAEL DIOPITA y GUZMAN, accused-appellant.
[G.R. No. 130601. December 4, 2000]
The fact that accused-appellant is endowed with such "sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he
is innocent of the crime charged. Indeed, religiosity is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the
unreligious alone who succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply
because of his previous good moral character and exemplary conduct. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction
must be resolved on the basic issue of whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his guilt beyond
any peradventure of doubt.
FACTS:
Complaining witness Dominga Pikit-pikit, on her way home from work, a man appeared from behind, looped his
arm around her neck and warned her not to shout or else she would die. [2] The man then dragged her through the
banana plantation towards the cornfields where the plants were a meter high and far apart. DomingaPikit-pikit got
a good look at the man, who turned out to be accused-appellant Rafael Diopita y Guzman, as he proceeded to
divest her of her belongings. Thereafter, accused-appellant Diopita announced his desire to have carnal knowledge
of Dominga. As he was sexually assaulting her, Dominga made desperate struggles and frantic calls for help but her
efforts proved futile until he finally satiated his lust. He then warned Dominga not to tell anyone and that should
he hear that she told anybody about the incident he would shoot her to death. Then he dressed up and left,
walking casually to the opposite direction of the subdivision before disappearing in the darkness. Exhausted,
Dominga slowly stood up, put on her clothes and walked away in the direction of her house. Finding it locked, she
asked help from her neighbors who called the police. Thereafter, Dominga was brought to Precinct No. 4 of Sasa,
Davao City, where SPO1 Stephen Batacan entered her complaint in the police blotter. Later, she was examined by
Dr.Floranne Lam-Vergara at the Davao Medical Center who found her "positive for spermatocytes."
 Dominga gave a description of the suspect and his possible whereabouts. [10] Acting on that information, PO3
dela Cruz went to the scene of the crime to investigate and there he recovered a colored white/yellow, size ten
(10) slipper. Since the victim earlier disclosed that the suspect headed north after committing the crime, he
proceeded to that direction where he came upon four (4) houses about fifteen (15) to fifty (50) meters away from
the scene of the crime. A back-up team was called and they rounded up all the residents therein. Afterwards, four
(4) men who fitted the description of the suspect were invited to the police station for questioning, including the
accused. The police invited Dominga to identify the suspect at the police station. Thereat, Dominga saw the four
(4) men in a police line-up and readily pointed at accused-appellant. [12] The police then had him try on the
recovered slipper; it easily fitted him.[13] Thus, Diopita was detained while the others were released.
The defense denied the charge and invoked alibi. Accused-appellant claimed that between 8:30 to 12:00 oclock
in the evening of 16 April 1995 he was with his wife Flora, son Ryan and fellow Jehovahs Witnesses Roger Custorio
and Ruben Suarez at the house of EulalioNisnisan for an informal Bible session upon the invitation of Juan Nisnisan.
[14]
 Accused-appellant also claimed that during those hours, he never left the place. Flora, Roger, Ruben, Eulalio and
Juan corroborated his alibi and testified on his good moral character as a ministerial servant of their faith.
On 18 June 1997, the trial court formally rejected his defense of alibi and convicted him of the crime charged;
consequently, accused-appellant is now before us on appeal.
ISSUE: WON the accused’s defense of good moral character as a ministerial servant of their faith make him
innocent
HELD: NO
We are not impressed. The fact that accused-appellant is endowed with such "sterling" qualities hardly justifies
the conclusion that he is innocent of the crime charged. Similarly, his having attained the position of "Ministerial
Servant" in his faith is no guarantee against any sexual perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part. Indeed,
religiosity is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone who succumbs to the
impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral
character and exemplary conduct. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issue
of whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since
the evidence of the crime in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the evidence of good moral
character of accused-appellant is unavailing.
Accused-appellant likewise bewails and assigns as reversible error the failure of the trial court to give credence
to the testimonies of the defense witnesses. He argues that these are Jehovahs Witnesses, and as such, they are
God-fearing people who would never lie as to his whereabouts at the time in question.  This argument is as puerile
as the first. We quote once more, and with approval, the pertinent portion of the trial court’s ruling on this point -

x xxx it is so easy for witnesses to get confused as to dates and time. The precision with which the witnesses for
the defense, who are his co-members in the Jehovahs Witnesses, quoted the respective hours when the
participants in the Bible sharing session supposedly arrived is, at best, self-serving and deserves scant
consideration because of the facility with which it may be concocted and fabricated (underscoring supplied).

The matter of assigning values to the declarations of witnesses is best and most competently performed by the
trial court who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying, and to
assess their credibility using various indicia available but not reflected in the records. [25] Hence, the court a quo's
appraisal on the matter is entitled to the highest respect, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear
showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance
that would affect the result of the case. [26] There is no compelling reason in the present case to depart from this
rule.
G.R. No. L-9723 June 28, 1957

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

GERONIMO SOLIMAN Y BUENAVENTURA alias EMONG and SOFRONIO PALIN Y PAZ alias POLONIO,

Topic Conduct and Character as Evidence

Case No. G.R. No. L-9723
Case Name People v. Soliman
Ponente Bautista Angelo
Digester Rojo, Aliyah

Quick Facts
Cause of Action Review for sentence of murder conviction
(Complaint/ Information)
Evidence in Question Testimony of Ernesto Balaktaw
How was it raised to the SC? Automatic review
Trial Court Decision Convicted of Murder
Supreme Court Decisions Death modified to reclusion perpetua

SUMMARY

RELEVANT FACTS
 Ernesto Basa was sleeping in a pushcart with Ernesto Balaktaw sleeping on a box situated near the
pushcart with heads opposite each other.
o Suddenly Balaktaw’s hand was kicked
o Woke up and saw a Sofronio Palin hold Basa by the shoulders while his companion Geronimo
Soliman stabbed Basa with a balisong many times
o Then assailants raw away.
 Took Basa to the hospital but he still died.
 Appellant Soliman testified that he acted on self-defense since he claims that deceased beat him up
previous to the incident since he didn’t let him borrow his pushcart; then the deceased provoked him and
boxed him which prompted Soliman to pull out his knife and in the course of thefighting, appellant
stabbed the deceased.
o Appellant Palin corroborated the testimony claiming that he was eating at a restaurant when he
saw Soliman and deceased grappling with each other and that he tried to separate them and
even advised Soliman to surrender which he followed.
  Conviction in mainly predicated on the testimony of one eyewitness – Ernesto Balaktaw

ISSUE/S
 W/N testimony of Balaktaw is credible?

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N Testimony of Balaktaw YES
is credible?
 TC was careful in taking notice not only of conduct of witness during trial but
also the extraneous matters that may help in reaching a correct conclusion.
(i.e. corroborated by testimony of appellant who admitted in having inflicted
the wounds and also supported by nature of wounds as found by Dr. in
autopsy)
 TC also made careful observation of the conduct and demeanor of the two
accused during trial
o Soliman: well built, robust and apparently strong
o Palin: a little bigger than other accused, stronger physique
o Deceased: slightly higher in stature thartSoliman but has a thinner
constitution and also much smaller than Palin
o Manner of testifying: Apparent indifference to all court proceedings
despite seriousness of crime; short, curt and confused manner
convinced Court they gave little importance to the case and the
proceedings
 Although initially Balaktaw was confused in identifying accused by their
names, when asked by court immediately thereafter to put his hands on
each of them, he was able to identify them correctly. Initial mistake must
have been due to accused being seated together.
 TC also did not err in not allowing the defense to prove that the deceased
had a violent, quarrelsome or provocative character. While good/character
may be availed as an aid to determine probability or improbability of the
commission of an offense, such is not necessary in crime of murder where
killing is committed through treachery premeditation.
o Proof of character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show
"that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the
mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt
defensive action was necessary."

RULING

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified in the sense of imposing upon appellants merely the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, affirming the decisions in all other respects, with costs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN BARLIS Y MERCADO, FERDINAND DOE and
EDUARDO DOE, accused. JONATHAN BARLIS Y MERCADO,Accused-Appellant.
FACTS:
The above named accused was charged for the crime of robbery with homicide. Trial proceeded against
Jonathan Barlis only because the two other accused remained at large. The prosecution presented witnesses
one of which is the house helper who witnessed the crime. She was able to identify Jonathan "because he is tall
and had no hat. Another was presented who was the uncle of the accused, a policeman, to whom the accused
surrendered and accordingly, made a confession (extrajudicial confession).On the part of the accused, he
surrendered because he is innocent and his witnesses tried to corroborate such alibi. The trial court rendered a
judgment oof conviction finding jonathan barlis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
homicide.

ISSUE:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI RAISED BY THE
ACCUSEDirtual law library
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION WILFULLY SUPRESSED THE EVIDENCE
3 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED JONATHAN BARLIS OF THE CRIME OF
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE BASED ON EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION

RULING:
1.We have ruled time and again that alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification
of the accused. The appellant's defense of alibi was rightly rejected by the trial court not only because it was
belied by his sworn statement (Exhibit "B") but also because he was positively identified by Adela Argate. The
appellant admitted in his sworn statement that he was one of three persons who entered the house of
HonorinA. Adela Argate positively identified the appellant as one of the three persons who entered the house
of the victim which had a sufficient illumination inside the house when they entered it.

2.The appellant's claim that the prosecution suppressed evidence is without merit. It was not necessary for the
prosecution to present Adela Argate's statement before the police authorities since Adela Argate was herself
presented as a witness and the prosecution had explained that it opted not to present such statement because
the same was not sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths. 24 Moreover, the defense had
access to a copy of such statement and even marked it as its Exhibit "2." The presumption that evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced 25 does not apply where the evidence is available to the
accused. Furthermore, the defense did not comply with Section 13, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court 27 in
attempting to impeach Adela's credibility by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement (Exhibit "2"). In this
case, while Adela was cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant, she was never confronted regarding her
alleged inconsistent statements in Exhibit 2.
3.rt The prosecution failed to corroborate the extrajudicial confession of the appellant on the robbery with
evidence of corpus delicti. In short, the robbery was not conclusively proved.To sustain a conviction for the
crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proved as conclusively as any other
essential element of the crime. 32The taking with intent to gain of personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon things are the essential elements
of robbery. 33 There is robbery with homicide when by reason or on occasion of a robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation of person, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.alAs shown above,
the only evidence of the taking of the personal property of the victim is the extrajudicial confession of the
appellant. Under Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, "an extrajudicial confession made by an accused
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti." Corpus delicti is
the body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e.g., the corpse of a murdered man or
the charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, it means the substantial fact that a crime
was committed. 35 It is made up of two elements:
(a) that a certain result has been proved, for example, a man has died or a building has been burned; and (b)
that some person is criminally responsible for the act. 36 Section 3, Rule 133 does not mean that every element
of the crime charged must be clearly established by independent evidence apart from the confession. It means
merely that there should be some evidence tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the
confession.