1.

Inconsistent testimonies of witnesses

Their credibility as witnesses is therefore assailable.

The inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses’ pertain to the positive identification of
the accused and not to mere collateral and minor matters. To wit;

a. Statements as to the number of shooters/ assailants

Andy- 4
Nicasio – 2
Darwin – 4
Daren (minor)- 2

b. statements as to the mode of escape

Andy – by foot
Nicasio – motorcycle (1)
Darwin – motorcycle (3)
Daren (minor) – ran

c. Statement as to the physical appearance of the assailants and their clothing at

the time of the incident.

d. Statement of the witnesses and the police report indicating the place where
the victims were before going to the place where the crime is committed.
Police report – they came from Nicasio’s videoke bar
Witnesses – Nicasio’s manukan and babuyan

e. inconsistent statements of Nicasio in his written affidavit as to the identity of

the accused. At first, he pointed out both Bolima and Baricaua as his attackers.
Later on, he identified Bolima as his own assailant and Baricaua as the attacker
of Bonifacio.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs Saligumba, the court discussed that
when the testimonies of the witnesses contradict themselves on a vital question
such as the identity of the offender, the element of reasonable doubt is injected
and cannot be lightly disregarded. Consequently, their credibility is seriously
impaired, the veracity of their claim is negated, and their probative value greatly
diminished -- if not rendered useless altogether. On the whole, the impression
they create is that they were feigned or fabricated.
2. Affidavit of Gemma
The wife of Bonifacio who has no personal knowledge of the crime committed. Her
relationship with the victim as well as her absence of personal knowledge affect the
credibility of Gemma as a prosecution witness. This affidavit is a mere hearsay evidence
which is unreliable, therefore devoid of probative value.

1
 According to Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, a witness can testify only
to those facts that she knows of her personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from her own perception, except as otherwise provided in the Rules of
Court.
In the case of Patula vs People, the personal knowledge of a witness is a
substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the
truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed
fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testimony derives its
value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying but
from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information.

3. The fact that the crime was committed at 8;30 in the evening.
Well lit? if no, the dimness of the light in the crime scene made it difficult or worst,
impossible, for the witnesses and the victim to identify the assailant.
4. Failure of the prosecution to prove the motive on the part of the accused.
5. The alibi of the accused has a leg to stand on. It is corroborated by a cctv footage as
well as the statements of the assailants’ witnesses.
P01 Joan Baricuau
June 19-26, 2014, detailed/assigned to accompany Mayor Lourdes
Panganiban in Manila
Annex 1: CCTV footage at the Glass Garden Event Venue
Annexes 2 and 3: Travel Order and Certification

Annexes 4, 5, 6, 7: Affidavit of witnesses

P03 Alvin Bolima

June 22, 2014, assigned with his co-PNP officers at the PNP Station of
Alicia, Isabela and subsequently at the checkpoint at the Alicia-San Mateo
Road
Annex 1: Duty Detail

Annexes 2, 3, 4: Affidavit of witnesses