EVIDENCE: CASES PART 5 Inconsistent testimony of the witness People vs.

Monieva FACTS: AFFIRMED

Levy Monieva was convicted of murder and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stabbing and hacking Leonardo Dumalag which directly caused his instantaneous death. The trial court issued an order referring the accused to the Masbate Provincial Health Office for mental examination and postponing indefinitely the pre-trial and arraignment of the case until the results of the said examination shall have become available for the consideration of the court. Masbate Provincial Health Office refused to conduct a mental examination on the accused there being no physician in that office competent enough to conduct the requested mental examination. The court a quo issued another order, referring the accused to the Rodriguez Memorial Mental Hospital, Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur for mental examination. Rodriguez Memorial Mental Hospital sent a letter to the court that there are no observable psychotic signs and symptoms noted on Monieva. Upon arraignment, accused Levy Monieva, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. The Regional Trial Court thereafter proceeded with the trial. Elvie Mabuti, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, testified that she saw accused Levy Monieva hack the victim Leonardo Dumalag. She also heard Leonardo Dumalag crying for help while he was running away. Upon seeing the incident, she and her husband together with their two children jumped from their house and fled to the bushes where they stayed the whole night. At about 10:00 oclock the following morning, they returned home and found the headless body of the victim. The head was recovered two days later on the land tilled by accused Monieva. Pacita Dumalag, the wife of the victim, testified that at about 7:30 oclock in the evening she was informed by Barangay Tanod that her husband was killed by Levy Monieva. She also stated that the bolo used in killing her husband was recovered from the accused.

The defense presented only one witness, the accused Levy Monieva. He denied the allegations that he killed Leonardo Dumalag. He testified that at the time of the incident he was being attended to by a quack doctor as he had a fever and his body

was aching. With the evidences attendant in the case, the RTC ruled the Monieva is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused appealed before the Supreme Court. In his brief accused-appellant contends that Elvie Mabuti is an unreliable witness because her testimony is contrary to human experience, incredible, fabricated and wholly concocted. He points to the following incongruities in the said witness testimony and rationalizes why he considers them to be such. a) Elvie Mabuti and her family left their house and fled to the bushes that are in an open field and that is where they stayed the whole night. It is highly incredible and unbelievable that they would leave their house to hide in an open field where they could have easily been caught and attacked. b) Elvie Mabuti testified that the body of Dumalag was found at about 10:00 oclock in the morning. This does not jibe with the testimony of Pacita Dumalag, that she found his lifeless body at around 7:30 oclock in the evening. c) Elvie Mabuti testified that the victim was beheaded and that the head was recovered two days later. This is false because the post mortem report of Dr. Artemio Capellan stated that the head of the victim was almost cut off but not severed. ISSUES: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE OTHERWISE UNCORROBORATED, INCREDIBLE AND FABRICATED TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS ELVIE MABUTI RULING: The court finds the testimony of Elvie Mabuti credible. She testified in a categorical, straightforward manner manifestations that a witness is telling the truth. Given the same set of circumstances another person might have had the same or an entirely different reaction. It is not fair to gauge the action of Elvie Mabuti and her family with that of another for it is difficult to ascertain what a persons reactions would be when a startling or frightening situation suddenly looms before him. It has been held in the case of People vs. Luzorata, "(d)ifferent people act differently to a given stimulus or type of

situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience." As to the alleged inconsistency between the testimony of Elvie Mabuti and the victims wife Pacita Dumalag we find that the time when the body was found is immaterial to appellants guilt. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of murder, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the fact of killing. It has been held that inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not impair the witnesses credibility. These inconsistencies even tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses as they negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. "Even where a witness is found to have deliberately falsified the truth in some particulars, and it was not shown that there was such intended prevarication by complainant in this case, it is not required that the entire testimony be rejected, since such portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited. It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. Finally, appellant was positively and categorically identified by Elvie Mabuti as the person who hacked Leonardo Dumalag. More than anything, this carries a great weight in the determination of whether an accused is guilty or not. DECISION: The conviction of appellant Levy Monieva is AFFIRMED, with the modification that he is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and not Murder. People vs. Sanchez FACTS: Antonio Sanchez et.al. were found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER for the death of Nelson Pealosa and Rickson Pealosa. At around 7:00 in the evening, Malabanan and the three accused boarded the car and went to Marpori Poultry Farm in Barangay Lanot, near Dr. Velecinas house. Peradillas alighted and walked towards his own house, near Dr. Velecinas house, to check whether Nelson Pealosa was at the party. Thereafter, using the two-way radio, Peradillas informed the

occupants of the car that Nelson Pealosas jeep was leaving the Velecina compound. Accused Averion immediately drove the car to the front of Peradillas house and the latter hopped in the cars back seat. Corcolon sat in the front seat beside him; witness Malabanan sat at the left side of the backseat and Peradillas stayed at the right side of the back seat. The group pursued Pealosas jeep. When the accuseds car was passing Victoria Farms, located about 100 meters from Pealosa compound, Corcolon ordered Averion to overtake Pealosas jeep. As the car overtook the jeep, Peradillas and Corcolon fired at Pealosas jeep, using M-16 and baby armalite rifles, executed in automatic firing mode. There were three bursts of gunfire. Based on the sketch prepared by Malabanan, illustrating the relative position of their car and Nelsons jeep at the time of the shooting, the assailants were at the left side of the jeep. ISSUES: RULING: People vs. Alfon FACTS: Expedito Alfon was convicted of murder for attacking and stabbing Tomas Alferez. Upon his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court a quo rendered the assailed decision. Vicente Eusebio and Manuel Rayoso testified that they saw the victim walking from the opposite direction being followed by the appellant. Shortly thereafter, when the victim and appellant were six meters away from Alfon, he suddenly hold the victims shoulder and stab the latter with a balisong at the lower left side of his chest. Appellant then ran away towards the seashore. Appellant Expedito Alfon, on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial. He narrated that the victim and his brother Rodolfo Alferez waylaid him. Rodolfo punched appellant on his left eye and later brought out a knife. Appellant ran away and the victim chased him. A fistfight then ensued between appellant and the victim. Rodolfo soon after caught up with them and tried to stab appellant with a knife. Appellant evaded the thrust and Rodolfo hit Tomas instead. Appellant then ran away and later learned that Tomas had died. The trial court concluded that the eyewitnesses testimonies convincingly established that appellant had killed the victim. Hence, the accused appealed before the Supreme Court.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the eyewitnesses testimonies, which he insinuates to be incredible and unreliable. As his first point, he asserts that considering the circumstances of the stabbing incident as narrated by the prosecution and the location of the injuries, an attack from behind is hardly believable. He avers that assuming that he was indeed following the victim prior to the attack, it could have been easier and more convenient for him to stab the victims back. However, as it now appears, the injuries are all found on the front of the victim. He thus argues that in the ordinary course of things, the attack was more likely frontal, contradictory to the testimonies of the prosecution. As his second point, appellant seeks to inject reasonable doubt on the ground of the alleged conflicting evidence of the prosecution on the number of stabbing blows executed by the assailant. Witness Eusebio testified that the victim was stabbed twice, while in the narration of witness Rayoso, it appears that the victim was stabbed only once.

ISSUES: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. RULING: The argument fails. First, with regard to the inconsistencies in the eyewitnesses testimonies, this Court holds that these are insufficient to affect the essential veracity of their testimonies. It is settled that conflict in testimonies of witnesses in describing details of an event may be due to differences in observations and memory which do not necessarily imply falsehood on their part. Inconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant. In the present case, though the two eyewitnesses differed as to the number of stabbing blows, they were unwavering and consistent in declaring that they witnessed no less than the appellant stabbing the victim at the chest with the use of a balisong. Second, as regards the doctors testimony, this Court notes that her opinion that the assailant most likely threw three stabbing blows was only surmised from her finding of three injuries. Such finding does not discount the possibility that the third wound on the victims finger could have

been caused in the victims attempt to parry the appellants knife. Given these, therefore, the alleged discrepancy fails to render the eyewitnesses testimonies unreliable and incredible. As this Court has consistently held, inconsistencies on minor details reinforce rather than weaken credibility. Against the evidence presented by the prosecution, which the trial court found sufficient and convincing, appellant interposes denial as his defense. He begrudges the trial court for not appreciating his defense that it was Rodolfo Alferez who stabbed the victim. This Court agrees with the trial courts observation that the version of the appellant is doubtful. First, the two disinterested eyewitnesses both testified that Rodolfo was not at the scene during the incident. This point in said testimonies was confirmed by Rodolfo himself, and was not challenged by the defense. Second, appellants version evidently conflicts with the physical evidence showing that the victim suffered three injuries. Assuming that Rodolfo indeed hit the victim by mistake, the two other wounds remain unexplained. Third, appellant failed to present evidence on any ill-motive Rodolfo and Tomas Alferez would have against appellant. The fact that that there was no bad blood between the families of the brothers and appellant was even stipulated by the parties. Fourth, and more importantly, appellant failed to present any independent evidence other than his own denial to bolster his claim. It is doctrinal that to merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. If unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it is negative and self-serving, deserving no greater value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. In the case at bar, appellant miserably failed to overcome the eyewitnesses testimonies, which positively identified him as the perpetrator of the crime. In view of the foregoing, this Court concurs with the trial court in attributing full faith and credence to the testimonies of the disinterested eyewitnesses and in disregarding the denial of appellant. As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former must prevail. The rule is settled that the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal, absent any arbitrariness or oversight of facts and circumstances of weight and substance. In this case, this Court finds no reason to reverse the findings of the court a quo. AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION People vs. Lawa FACTS: ISSUES: RULING: