November 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > November 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 186537 : November 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ERENEO OLID ALIAS BLACKIE, APPELLANT. :
[G.R. No. 186537 : November 22, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ERENEO OLID ALIAS BLACKIE, APPELLANT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 November 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 186537 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ERENEO OLID alias Blackie, appellant.
RESOLUTION
On appeal is the Decision[1] dated April 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00651 which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kahankalan, Negros Occidental, Branch 61, in Criminal Case Nos. 876, 877 and 878. The RTC found appellant Ereneo Olid alias Blackie guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for kidnapping Emesto Biasong (Ernesto), Wilfredo Villaruz (Wilfredo), and Ladislao Pillones (Ladislao).
The prosecution evidence established the following facts.
At around 9:00 in the evening of August 11, 1990, Ernesto, his wife Alejandra, their two children, and his mother were inside their house in Sitio Marabo, Barangay Mambaroto, Sipalay, Negros Occidental, when appellant and his other co-accused approached their house. Ernesto's mother, who was downstairs at that time, tried to go upstairs, but she was prevented by one-of the accused. So Ernesto's mother called for Alejandra to come down. Alejandra obliged, bringing with her a lighted kerosene lamp which she placed on the window sill. Alejandra saw six armed men and she recognized four of them as appellant, Nelson Garduce, Pediot Flores and Felipe Yanong, who were all known to her even before. Appellant and his group then looked for Ernesto. When Ernesto came down, he tried to talk to them, but they refused. The group then pulled Ernesto and dragged him towards the road despite Alejandra's pleadings.
On the same night, at around 9:30 in the evening, appellant and his group, with Ernesto in tow, went to Ladislao's house. Ladislao and his wife Benedicta, who resided within the same area as Ernesto, were then sleeping when Ernesto called Ladislao twice. Ladislao went downstairs and then called Benedicta. Benedicta obliged, bringing a lighted lamp with her. By the time she got downstairs, however, Ladislao was no longer inside their house. Benedicta asked Pedro Palasuelo, Jr., Ladislao's future son-in-law, who was also in the house, what happened to Ladislao. The latter told her that Ladislao was taken by an unidentified person with four armed men.
The prosecution evidence also established that after taking Ernesto and Ladislao, the group went to Wilfredo's house, which was also in the same area. Wilfredo and his wife Leah were talking when they suddenly heard Ernesto calling Wilfredo. Wilfredo immediately went downstairs. Moments later, Leah heard a commotion so she brought out a lighted lamp and went downstairs. Leah saw Ernesto guarded by two unidentified men and also recognized appellant, who was armed with a bolo, Nelson Garduce, who had a "pugakang" (a homemade gun), and Pediot Flores, who was brandishing a .38 caliber gun. The group told Leah that they will bring. Wilfredo somewhere else to discuss something. Leah objected and Wilfredo also refused to go with the group. But the group nonetheless took Wilfredo away. When Leah tried to follow them, Nelson pointed his gun at her and told her that she cannot go with them since even Alejandra was not allowed to do so.
The following day, Alejandra, Benedicta, and Leah reported the incident to the military detachment and to the Sipalay Police Station. Their husbands have not been returned nor have they shown up since they were taken away by appellant and his co-accused. Only appellant was apprehended while the rest remained at-large.
In the face of the positive identification by the prosecution's witnesses, appellant posited the defense of alibi. Appellant claimed that he was three kilometers away from the place where the crime happened. He was allegedly at the house of a certain Geroti on that day of the incident, but went to the house of Angelina Bordomeo, his only other witness. Angelina testified that appellant has been staying with her since March 23, 1990. She further testified that in the evening of August 11, 1990 she was the one who closed their store, and she saw and talked with appellant who arrived at around 4:00 in the morning of August 12, 1990. Appellant denied that he was a member of any organization like the "Grenans" but Angelina declared that appellant was a member of the said organization under a certain Herman Bardancel. Angelina added that appellant was on duty for the organization on August 11, 1990 from 7:00 in the evening up to 4:00 in the morning of August 12, 1990.
On April 23, 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction. The CA held that contrary to appellant's claim, appellant was positively identified by prosecution witnesses Alejandra, Benedicta and Leah as one of the kidnappers of their husbands. While Benedicta was not able to see Ladislao's abductors, the unbroken chain of events could only lead to the conclusion that appellant was one of the abductors of her husband. Other than self-serving testimonies, appellant did not present any convincing evidence to corroborate his denial and alibi. In fact, the testimonies of appellant and his witness contradicted each other.
Hence, this appeal.
After a careful review of the evidence presented and the parties' submissions, we find no compelling reason to overturn appellant's conviction. Appellant's appeal presents no new issues before this Court. There is no showing that the RTC and CA committed any errors in law or erred in their findings of fact. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. The trial court judge's evaluation of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is entitled to great respect and even finality especially since it was affirmed by the CA.[3]
Appellant's alibi likewise fails to persuade. To establish alibi, the accused must present convincing evidence (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[4] Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[5] In the case at bar, appellant failed to satisfy the said requisites, especially the second. The distance where appellant claimed to be from the locus delicti was only three kilometers, a distance not too far to traverse even by walking. Due to its doubtful nature, the defense of alibi must be supported by clear and convincing proof.[6] However, this was not done in the case at bar for the testimony of defense witness Angelina Bordomeo and that of appellant were marked by contradictions. In fact, Angelina testified that appellant was working for the "Grenans" organization on the night of the incident and that she only saw appellant at 4:00 in the morning of August 12, 1990, when she was about to open the store. Moreover, alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.[7]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The April 23, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00651 finding accused-appellant Ereneo Olid alias Blackie guilty of three counts of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention is AFFIRMED.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 186537 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ERENEO OLID alias Blackie, appellant.
On appeal is the Decision[1] dated April 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00651 which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kahankalan, Negros Occidental, Branch 61, in Criminal Case Nos. 876, 877 and 878. The RTC found appellant Ereneo Olid alias Blackie guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for kidnapping Emesto Biasong (Ernesto), Wilfredo Villaruz (Wilfredo), and Ladislao Pillones (Ladislao).
The prosecution evidence established the following facts.
At around 9:00 in the evening of August 11, 1990, Ernesto, his wife Alejandra, their two children, and his mother were inside their house in Sitio Marabo, Barangay Mambaroto, Sipalay, Negros Occidental, when appellant and his other co-accused approached their house. Ernesto's mother, who was downstairs at that time, tried to go upstairs, but she was prevented by one-of the accused. So Ernesto's mother called for Alejandra to come down. Alejandra obliged, bringing with her a lighted kerosene lamp which she placed on the window sill. Alejandra saw six armed men and she recognized four of them as appellant, Nelson Garduce, Pediot Flores and Felipe Yanong, who were all known to her even before. Appellant and his group then looked for Ernesto. When Ernesto came down, he tried to talk to them, but they refused. The group then pulled Ernesto and dragged him towards the road despite Alejandra's pleadings.
On the same night, at around 9:30 in the evening, appellant and his group, with Ernesto in tow, went to Ladislao's house. Ladislao and his wife Benedicta, who resided within the same area as Ernesto, were then sleeping when Ernesto called Ladislao twice. Ladislao went downstairs and then called Benedicta. Benedicta obliged, bringing a lighted lamp with her. By the time she got downstairs, however, Ladislao was no longer inside their house. Benedicta asked Pedro Palasuelo, Jr., Ladislao's future son-in-law, who was also in the house, what happened to Ladislao. The latter told her that Ladislao was taken by an unidentified person with four armed men.
The prosecution evidence also established that after taking Ernesto and Ladislao, the group went to Wilfredo's house, which was also in the same area. Wilfredo and his wife Leah were talking when they suddenly heard Ernesto calling Wilfredo. Wilfredo immediately went downstairs. Moments later, Leah heard a commotion so she brought out a lighted lamp and went downstairs. Leah saw Ernesto guarded by two unidentified men and also recognized appellant, who was armed with a bolo, Nelson Garduce, who had a "pugakang" (a homemade gun), and Pediot Flores, who was brandishing a .38 caliber gun. The group told Leah that they will bring. Wilfredo somewhere else to discuss something. Leah objected and Wilfredo also refused to go with the group. But the group nonetheless took Wilfredo away. When Leah tried to follow them, Nelson pointed his gun at her and told her that she cannot go with them since even Alejandra was not allowed to do so.
The following day, Alejandra, Benedicta, and Leah reported the incident to the military detachment and to the Sipalay Police Station. Their husbands have not been returned nor have they shown up since they were taken away by appellant and his co-accused. Only appellant was apprehended while the rest remained at-large.
In the face of the positive identification by the prosecution's witnesses, appellant posited the defense of alibi. Appellant claimed that he was three kilometers away from the place where the crime happened. He was allegedly at the house of a certain Geroti on that day of the incident, but went to the house of Angelina Bordomeo, his only other witness. Angelina testified that appellant has been staying with her since March 23, 1990. She further testified that in the evening of August 11, 1990 she was the one who closed their store, and she saw and talked with appellant who arrived at around 4:00 in the morning of August 12, 1990. Appellant denied that he was a member of any organization like the "Grenans" but Angelina declared that appellant was a member of the said organization under a certain Herman Bardancel. Angelina added that appellant was on duty for the organization on August 11, 1990 from 7:00 in the evening up to 4:00 in the morning of August 12, 1990.
On April 23, 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction. The CA held that contrary to appellant's claim, appellant was positively identified by prosecution witnesses Alejandra, Benedicta and Leah as one of the kidnappers of their husbands. While Benedicta was not able to see Ladislao's abductors, the unbroken chain of events could only lead to the conclusion that appellant was one of the abductors of her husband. Other than self-serving testimonies, appellant did not present any convincing evidence to corroborate his denial and alibi. In fact, the testimonies of appellant and his witness contradicted each other.
Hence, this appeal.
After a careful review of the evidence presented and the parties' submissions, we find no compelling reason to overturn appellant's conviction. Appellant's appeal presents no new issues before this Court. There is no showing that the RTC and CA committed any errors in law or erred in their findings of fact. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. The trial court judge's evaluation of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is entitled to great respect and even finality especially since it was affirmed by the CA.[3]
Appellant's alibi likewise fails to persuade. To establish alibi, the accused must present convincing evidence (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[4] Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[5] In the case at bar, appellant failed to satisfy the said requisites, especially the second. The distance where appellant claimed to be from the locus delicti was only three kilometers, a distance not too far to traverse even by walking. Due to its doubtful nature, the defense of alibi must be supported by clear and convincing proof.[6] However, this was not done in the case at bar for the testimony of defense witness Angelina Bordomeo and that of appellant were marked by contradictions. In fact, Angelina testified that appellant was working for the "Grenans" organization on the night of the incident and that she only saw appellant at 4:00 in the morning of August 12, 1990, when she was about to open the store. Moreover, alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.[7]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The April 23, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00651 finding accused-appellant Ereneo Olid alias Blackie guilty of three counts of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention is AFFIRMED.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-17. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Executive Justice Antonio L. Villamor and Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 17-27. Penned by Judge Rodolfo S. Layumas.
[3] People v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 6S2, 697, citing People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547.
[4] People v. Saban, G.R. No. 1 10559, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 36, 46; People v. Reduca, G. R. Nos. 126094-95, January 21, 1999,301 SCRA 516, 534.
[5] People v. De Labajan, G.R. Nos. 129968-69, October 27, 1999, 317 SCRA 566, 575.
[6] See People v. Hillado, G.R. No. 122838, May 24, 1999, 307 SCRA 535, 553; People v. Balmoria, G. R. Nos. 120620-21, March 20, 1998, 287 SCRA 687, 708.
[7] Vide: People v. Benito, G.R. No. 128072, February 19, 1999, 303 SCRA 468, 478; People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 118311, February 19, 1999, 303 SCRA 414, 429; People v. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 2147.
