Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > June 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 199398 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE VELO Y BALBAS:




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199398 : June 13, 2012]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE VELO Y BALBAS

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 June 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 199398 [People of the Philippines v. George Velo y Balbas] - After deliberating on the appeal assailing the April 29, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03750, taking into account the allegations and arguments of the parties, the Court resolves to DISMISS it for failure to show any reversible error in the challenged judgment as to warrant the exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

The accused argues 1] that the trial court erred in allowing Norma Hernandez (Norma) to testify as an additional witness; 2] that the prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent statements; 3] that he was not at the scene of the crime; and 4] that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

These arguments, however, do not persuade the Court. To begin with, the testimony of Norma was not presented as a newly discovered evidence pursuant to Section 2 (b) of Rule 121. She was allowed as a witness after the trial court granted the prosecution's motion for the reopening of the case under Section 24, Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which reads: 

Sec. 24. Reopening. - At any time before finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order granting it.

In the case of Cabarles v. Maceda,[1] it was written that the following are the requirements for the reopening of a case: (1) the reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2) the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the issuance of the order.

The paramount consideration of said procedural remedy is to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This was elaborated in the Cabarles  case as follows: 

Generally, after the parties have produced their respective direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only. However, the court, for good reasons, in the furtherance of justice, may allow new evidence upon their original case, and its ruling will not be disturbed in the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. A motion to reopen may thus properly be presented only after either or both parties had formally offered and closed their evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even after promulgation but before finality of judgment and the only controlling guideline governing a motion to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. This remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice.[2]

In this case, the requirements were complied with. First, the reopening of the case was ordered by the trial court before it rendered its judgment of conviction. Second, the order of reopening was made upon the motion of the prosecution during the rebuttal stage. Third, said order was issued only after the prosecution and the defense had been heard on their respective arguments, orally and in writing. Fourth, the order was issued to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Fifth, the presentation of additional evidence, the testimony of Norma was terminated within thirty days from the issuance of the order. The records will show that Norma testified on November 25, 2008 which was less than 30 days from October 28, 2008, the date when the order denying the appellant's motion for reconsideration of the order allowing the reopening was issued.

The Court also cannot give weight to the argument that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses should not be given credence because of some patent inconsistencies and contradiction. The inconsistencies referred to by the accused did not go into the elements of the crime. The cited inaccuracies merely dealt with the manner on how the witnesses saw the crime. Forthright witnesses are not immune from committing minor inaccuracies in their narration of events. As such, trivial inconsistencies and inconsequential discrepancies on minor details in the testimony of witnesses do not impair their credibility. In fact, such inconsistencies are considered to be badges of truth for they manifest spontaneity and erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. As long as the inconsistencies are immaterial or irrelevant to the elements of the crime and do not touch on material facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of the accused as in the present case, these are not valid grounds to reverse a conviction.[3]

Under Article 248, the essential elements of the crime of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. In this case, all these elements have been sufficiently established by the prosecution. First, the eyewitnesses testified that the accused stabbed and hacked the victim. Second, the witnesses corroborated each other's testimonies that the accused held the victim's neck from behind with his left hand and stabbed the victim in the front part of his body, causing him to fall. When he was on the ground, the accused repeatedly stabbed him. Third, the attack was attended by treachery. The trial court in finding treachery stated that the killing was sudden and unexpected and the victim was not in a position to defend himself. The victim was an old man and was known to be harmless although noted to be noisy when he was under the influence of liquor. Aside from being an old fellow and drunk at the time, the victim was no match to the physical strength of the accused. He was not aware of the criminal design of the accused as the attack was sudden. Fourth, the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide.

The main defense of the accused is denial and alibi. This argument does not merit the Court's consideration. It is elementary that alibi and denial are outweighed by positive identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter. The prosecution witnesses in this case positively and consistently testified that they saw the accused perpetrate the crime. For this reason, it was incumbent upon the accused to prove that he was at another place when the felony was committed, and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[4] Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and undeserving of weight in law. As against the positive, direct and convincing evidence of the prosecution, the accused was only able to present denials and uncorroborated alibi.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the April 29, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03750 which affirmed with modification the January 12, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Luna, Apayao, Branch 26, in Criminal Case No. 5-2004, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Domingo Raquedan, in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Villarama, Jr., J., Acting Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated June 6, 2012.)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007, 516 SCRA 303, 314-315.

[2] Id. 

[3] People v. Dioneda, G.R. No. 180923, April 30, 2009, 587 SCRA 312, 318. 

[4] Malana and Tiaga v. People, G.R. No. 173612, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 451, 465-466.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.C. No. 7565 : June 13, 2012] MILA C. ARCHE v. ATTY. SOFRONIO CLAVECILLA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 195193 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS JUANITO METRE, JR. A.K.A. "LUCIO", APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190316 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 195427 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF APPELLEE, VERSUS REMEDIOS CAPULE Y MADAYAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181427 : June 13, 2012] JOMIL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. SPOUSES GLORIA AND JULIAN C. CARGULLO

  • [G.R. No. 171243 : June 13, 2012] SPOUSES ISAGANI CASTRO AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. CONCORDIA BARTOLOME AND VICTORIA BARTOLOME

  • [G.R. No. 195775 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARITES ROBLES Y LARIOS

  • [G.R. No. 195526 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO ALBURO AND MICHAEL CARVAJAL ACCUSED; ROLANDO ALBURO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 199206 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OMAR WANDAY Y AMPASO

  • [G.R. No. 192548 : June 13, 2012] ANTONIO T. CHU v. SPOUSES ALFRED & LAUREANA ESTOE, FELIX GRAVIDEZ, ALFREDO GRAVIDEZ, ANGELO VIOLENA, ARACELI SORIA AND FRANCISCO CALONGE

  • [G.R. No. 175228 : June 13, 2012] ALFREDO M. ABIERTAS v. JOSE C. LATORRE

  • [G.R. No. 172899 : June 13, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF ZACARIAS ALICANDO, REPRESENTED BY BERNARDINA ALICANDO, ADMINISTRATOR

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2870 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3235-P) : June 13, 2012] PRESTIDIO HAIR SALON CO., REPRESENTED BY MARITA L. ESTABALAYA v. EFREN P. LUNA, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, QUEZON CITY.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-12-2315 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3309-RTJ) : June 13, 2012] ALAN F. PAGUIA v. JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI, PRESIDING JUDGE, ALEXANDER A. RIVERA, CLERK OF COURT, AND MA. THERESA V. RODRIGUEZ, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 199398 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE VELO Y BALBAS

  • [G.R. No. 199220 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ISMAIL DALAMBAN MAGDATU

  • [G.R. No. 175016 : June 13, 2012] BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • [G.R. No. 189103 : June 13, 2012] PRIMITIVO R. DOMINGO, JR., TERESA D. SANDERS, DANILO R. DOMINGO, IRENEO R. DOMINGO, ROSARIO DOMINGO-LACSON, LORETA DOMINGO-PANIS, MARY ANN R. DOMINGO, AMADOR R. DOMINGO, LYDIA T. DOMINGO, MICHELLE D. DETITA, SERGIO T. DOMINGO, JR. AND JENNILYN T. DOMINGO v. ARNULFO MANZON, AMELIA MANZON-PANGANIBAN, ORLANDO MANZON, ADORACION MANZON-PESTANO, MILAGROS MANZON-TOLENTINO, RIZALINA MANZON-MARZAN, QUIRINO MANZON, FELICISIMA MANZON-SANTIAGO AND BENITA MANZON-TINIO

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 198790 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONIE ORCALES Y LANAGA

  • [G.R. No. 166461 : June 13, 2012] HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 188850 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO MONTES Y CABONILAS

  • [G.R. No. 182524 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO PINEDA Y BORJA

  • [G.R. No. 196008 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM Y MALIGA

  • [G.R. No. 194462 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILFREDO FAUSTINO Y MENDOZA

  • [G.R. No. 198017 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL RAMOS Y CARBONEL ALIAS "ENGOL"

  • [G.R. No. 199101 : June 13, 2012] MA. REGINA DELARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES MERLYN S. UY AND GOHOC P. UY

  • [G.R. No. 189947 : June 13, 2012] MANILA PAVILION HOTEL, OWNED AND OPERATED BY ACESITE (PHILS.) HOTEL CORPORATION V. HENRY DELADA

  • [G.R. No. 200569 : June 13, 2012] PACIFICO MENDIGO Y GALLENO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 199068 : June 13, 2012] LAUREANA P. BORRES v. SISTER ANGELINA M. FERNANDO

  • [G.R. No. 194070 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN GALICIA Y ROBLAS

  • [G.R. No. 188726 : June 18, 2012] CRESENCIO C. MILLA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARKET PURSUITS, INC. REPRESENTED BY CARLO V. LOPEZ.

  • [G.R. No. 192085 : June 18, 2012] CARIDAD SEGARRA SAZON v. LETECIA VASQUEZ-MENANCIO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EDGAR S. SEGARRA.

  • [UDK-14595 : June 18, 2012] LOLITO BORJA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ELIZABETH L. URBANO.

  • [G.R. No. 196971 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOURDES AGAPOR Y AZUELA, A.K.A. "ODETTE".

  • [G.R. No. 196985 : June 18, 2012] ALEXANDER G. CASTRO, PETITIONER, VERSUS GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND HONORABLE ROBERT VERGARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF GSIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 201183 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO BERSABE

  • [A.C. No. 8178 : June 18, 2012] NAPOLEON CHIU v. ATTY. ALAN A. LEYNES

  • [A.M. No. 11-8-151-RTC : June 19, 2012] RE: BURNING OF THE HALL OF JUSTICE, IPIL, ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY

  • [A.M. No. 14265-Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ERNESTO D. MERCADO, RTC, BRANCH 3, BATANGAS CITY; JUDGE SIMON D. ENCINAS, RTC, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY; JUDGE PORFIRIO A. PARIAN, RTC, BRANCH 33, ILOILO CITY; JUDGE SANTIAGO F. BAUTISTA, JR., MTCC, SAN JOSE CITY, NUEVA ECIJA; AND JUDGE PEDRO R. SUYAT, MCTC, NATIVIDAD, PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. P-04-1924 : June 19, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL; FLAVIANO D. BALGOS, JR., ET AL. VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. 14297- Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MRS. NORA L. HERRERA, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. MANUEL C. HERRERA, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [A.C. No. 3375 : June 20, 2012] FEDENCIO BALICOLON v. ATTY. LAWRENCE CORDOVA

  • [G.R. No. 170046 : June 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAXIMO A. BORJE, JR., ET AL.

  • [A.C. No. 6998 : June 20, 2012] CLARITA O. SANTIANO v. ATTY. TEODULO PUNZALAN.

  • [G.R. No. 192904 : June 20, 2012] ELADIA LIMBO v. ELIZABETH MYRNA AGRIPA-MANEGDEG, IN HER CAPACITY AS SURVIVING HEIR AND AS SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED SPS. MARCELO AGRIPA AND LYDIA AGRIPA.

  • [G.R. No. 201560 : June 20, 2012] DR. JOSE CESAR CABRERA v. AMECO CONTRACTORS RENTAL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 200939 : June 25, 2012] SPOUSES CARMELO, JR. AND ELIZABETH AFRICA, PETITIONERS, VERSUS BANK OF COMMERCE, THE PURPORTED TRANSFEREE OF TRADERS ROYAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6332 : June 26, 2012] RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 28, 2003 IN G.R. NO. 145817 AND G.R. NO. 145822 (ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, RESPONDENT)

  • [G.R. No. 139472 : June 26, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DELFIN S. RODRIGO

  • [A.M. No. 12-6-110-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF CLERK OF COURT CLARENCE G. CHERREGUINE, RTC, BRANCH 42, BALANGIGA, EASTERN SAMAR, TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR HIS FATHER

  • [A.M. No. 12-5-89-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: QUERY OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOCELYN SUNDIANG DILIG, RTC, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, AS TO WHO MAY RESOLVE THE PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF THE NOTARIAL COMMISSION OF ATTY. CONRADO B. LAGMAN AND THE OPPOSITION THERETO

  • [G.R. No. 196530 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISITO TULANG Y LLANITA, A.K.A "LOUIE"

  • [G.R. No. 175779 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGINIA MENDOZA Y ARBO @ CRIS

  • [G.R. No. 181323 : June 27, 2012] LILIAN MANTO AND EMMANUEL FAUSTINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 199493 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMIE ASPACIO Y MAYOLA

  • [G.R. No. 196490 : June 27, 2012] LEONARDO IGOT v. BANCO SAN JUAN

  • [G.R. No. 188778 : June 27, 2012] ANTONIO HERMANO v. OCTAVIO ALVAREZ, JR., LEONORA CASTRO-BATAC, GILBERTO C. CASTRO, JR., MANUEL C. CASTRO, CONSUELO CASTRO-CASTRO, JAKE CASTRO, MA. ELISA CASTRO-VILLANUEVA AND ROSELINO CASTRO

  • [G.R. No. 192817 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELITO MALABANAN Y ANAHAN

  • [G.R. No. 185165 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE MACAWILI Y PALLER.

  • [G.R. No. 182210 : June 27, 2012] PAZ T. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 179902 : June 27, 2012] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO PASCUAL, SR. & RODOLFO PASCUAL, JR.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-07-1687 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-830-MTJ) : June 27, 2012] DOMINGO B. PANTIG v. JUDGE PASCUALA CLEOFE G. CANLAS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT [MTC], SASMUAN, PAMPANGA.