April 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177745 : April 21, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CRISTINO BUAN Y TUVERA @ "BANOG" OR "TINO" :
[G.R. No. 177745 : April 21, 2008]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CRISTINO BUAN Y TUVERA @ "BANOG" OR "TINO"
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 21 April 2008:
G.R. No. 177745 - People of the Philippines v. Cristino Buan y Tuvera @ "Banog" or "Tino"
Before us is appellant Cristino Buan's motion for reconsideration of our 8 October 2007 Resolution where we ruled
The Solicitor General, in her comment on appellant's motion for reconsideration, prays that the motion be denied for lack of merit.
We take a second look at this case.
Conformably with People v. Mateo,[3] the Court transferred this case (then G.R. No. 162632) to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.[4] On July13, 2006, the Copurt of Appeals affirmed the trial court's verdict finding appellant gulity of murder beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.[5] Then, the case was elevated to this Court. The COurt after a careful review of the case found no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals sufficient to overturn it. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals are all in accordance with law and jurisprudence. In view of this, the COurt adopted the factual findings and conclusions of law of hte Court of Appeals.
Despite appellant's insistence that the eyewitness's account is implausible, we find no reason to vacate the findings of the Court of Appeals.
The eyewitness, the victim's wife, positvely identified appellant as the shooter. Appellant shot the victim from behind. The doctor who autopsied the victim testified that the entry of the gunshot wound was on the left part of the back of the victim. This corroborates the eyewitness's testimony. All that appellant could offer was an unsubstantiated alibi that at the time of the shooting he was already on his way to Manila.[6] The settled rule is that where there is positive testimony of an eyewitness regarding the presence of the accused at the locus criminis on the date and time the crime was committed, a negative defense of alibi is undeserving of weight or credence.[7]
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality.
No further pleadings will be entertained in this case and let entry of judgement be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 177745 - People of the Philippines v. Cristino Buan y Tuvera @ "Banog" or "Tino"
Before us is appellant Cristino Buan's motion for reconsideration of our 8 October 2007 Resolution where we ruled
x x x xAppellant implores this Court to reconsider the "dismissal of the instant appeal on the ground that the same does not supposedly warrant this Honorable Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction" for it is the Court's mandatory duty, under the Constitution, to review this appeal. Appellant also maintain that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the supposedly implausible account of the shooting incident by the lone prosecution eyewitness.[2]
Considering the facts of the case and the issues involved, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appealed Decision and no novel issues of law involved to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of the facts and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 13 July 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C No. 02171, finding appellant Cristino Buan y Tuvera @ "Banog" or "Tino" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, and AFFIRMS said decision.
SO ORDERED.[1]
The Solicitor General, in her comment on appellant's motion for reconsideration, prays that the motion be denied for lack of merit.
We take a second look at this case.
Conformably with People v. Mateo,[3] the Court transferred this case (then G.R. No. 162632) to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.[4] On July13, 2006, the Copurt of Appeals affirmed the trial court's verdict finding appellant gulity of murder beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.[5] Then, the case was elevated to this Court. The COurt after a careful review of the case found no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals sufficient to overturn it. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals are all in accordance with law and jurisprudence. In view of this, the COurt adopted the factual findings and conclusions of law of hte Court of Appeals.
Despite appellant's insistence that the eyewitness's account is implausible, we find no reason to vacate the findings of the Court of Appeals.
The eyewitness, the victim's wife, positvely identified appellant as the shooter. Appellant shot the victim from behind. The doctor who autopsied the victim testified that the entry of the gunshot wound was on the left part of the back of the victim. This corroborates the eyewitness's testimony. All that appellant could offer was an unsubstantiated alibi that at the time of the shooting he was already on his way to Manila.[6] The settled rule is that where there is positive testimony of an eyewitness regarding the presence of the accused at the locus criminis on the date and time the crime was committed, a negative defense of alibi is undeserving of weight or credence.[7]
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality.
No further pleadings will be entertained in this case and let entry of judgement be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 19.
[2] Id. at 29.
[3] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[4] Rollo, p. 2.
[5] Id. at 14.
[6] Id. at 10-12.
[7] People v. Bello, G.R. No. 124871, May 13, 2004, 428 SCRA 388, 408; People v. Beruega, G.R. No. 142931, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 674.
