Positive vs.

Negative Evidence; Alibi

RONALD IBAÑEZ, EMILIO IBAÑEZ, and DANIEL "BOBOT" IBAÑEZ,

vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 190798 [781 SCRA 291] January 27, 2016

FACTS:

Petitioners were charged of frustrated homicide for the reason that they inflicted mortal
wounds to Rodolfo Lebria committed by means of stabbing, stoning, and hitting of shovel.
The prosecution’s witnesses (a police investigator, the victim’s wife and daughter) identified
the petitioners as the perpetrator of the crime. Meanwhile, the accused petitioners never
presented any witnesses. Ronald and Bobot contended that they never stabbed the victim;
instead, they are the ones stabbed by the victim as evidenced by their medical certificate
presented to the Court almost 5 years from the occurrence of the incident. For his part,
Emilio argued that he was one kilometer away from the site on that fateful night of incident,
hence it is hardly possible for him to participate in the incident.

ISSUE: WON the petitioners are guilty of frustrated homicide.

RULING:

Yes, they are guilty of the crime charged.

Jurisprudence has it, between an affirmative assertion which has a ring of truth to it and a
general denial, the former generally prevails. Alibi is also an inherently weak defense that
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the witnesses of the petitioners as
perpetrators of the crime.

Here, the prosecution witnesses clearly identified the accused without any hint of hesitation
or sign of untruthfulness, while the accused presented no witnesses. Instead, they merely
presented self-serving testimonies. For one, Bobot and Ronald’s allegation that they were
stabbed by the victim for which reason they fought back were unconvincing since their
medical certificate were only presented as evidenced only after almost 5 years has elapsed
from the occurrence of the incident. Besides, it is contrary to human experience that Ronald
who is the father of Bobot to leave the latter in middle of the altercation facing danger to be
stabbed by the victim, to ask for assistance from the Police Precinct. Normally, a father will
never leave his son on that scenario. As to Emilio’s alibi, such is also incredible. In order for
the defense of alibi to prosper, the petitioner must not only prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the offense, but that
it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the incident. In this case, Emilio’s
contention failed to meet the physical impossibility requirement.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated September 25, 2009 in CA-G.R.
CR. No. 31285 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners RONALD IBAÑEZ, EMILIO
IBAÑEZ and DANIEL "BOBOT" IBAÑEZ are found guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced
to a prison term of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. They are also ordered to pay RODOLFO LEBRIA
Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages and Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00) as moral damages. SO ORDERED.

Page 1 of 2
 Positive vs. Negative Evidence; Alibi

PRINCIPLES:

DENIALS; ALIBI; An assessment of the defenses of denial and alibi necessitates looking into
the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. —With respect to the petitioners’ defenses
of denial and alibi, the Court concurs with the lower courts’ rejection of these defenses. An
assessment of the defenses of denial and alibi necessitates looking into the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies. Well-settled is the rule that in determining who between
the prosecution and defense witnesses are to be believed, the evaluation of the trial court is
accorded much respect for the simple reason that the trial court is in a better position to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they deliver their testimonies. As such, the
findings of the trial court is accorded finality unless it has overlooked substantial facts which
if properly considered, could alter the result of the case.

DENIALS; ALIBI; Between an affirmative assertion which has a ring of truth to it and a
general denial, the former generally prevails. —The trial and appellate courts were right in
not giving probative value to petitioners’ denial. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that
further crumbles when it comes face-to-face with the positive identification and
straightforward narration of the prosecution witnesses. Between an affirmative assertion
which has a ring of truth to it and a general denial, the former generally prevails. The
prosecution witnesses recounted the details of the crime in a clear, detailed and consistent
manner, without any hint of hesitation or sign of untruthfulness, which they could not have
done unless they genuinely witnessed the incident. Besides, the prosecution witnesses could
not have mistakenly identified the petitioners as Rodolfo’s perpetrators considering there is
so much familiarity among them. The records are also bereft of any indication that the
prosecution witnesses were actuated by ill motives when they testified against the
petitioners. Thus, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.

DENIALS; ALIBI; For the defense of alibi to prosper, the petitioners must not only prove by
clear and convincing evidence that he was at another place at the time of the commission of
the offense but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.—
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the petitioners must not only prove by clear and
convincing evidence that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the
offense but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Emilio
himself admitted that he was just one kilometer away from the crime scene when the
incident happened during the unholy hour of 1:00 a.m. of July 15, 2001. As such, Emilio
failed to prove physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene on the date and time in
question. Just like denial, alibi is an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over the
positive identification by the witnesses of the petitioners as the perpetrators of the crime. In
the present case, Emilio was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as one of the
assailants. Moreover, alibi becomes less credible if offered by the accused himself and his
immediate relatives as they are expected to make declarations in his favor, as in this case,
where Emilio, his father and brother insisted that the former was somewhere else when the
incident occurred. For these reasons, Emilio’s defense of alibi will not hold.

Page 2 of 2