Myline Cordial

People of the Philippines vs Quinciano Rendoque, Sr. y Amores, , et. al.
G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000

FACTS:
At 8:00 in the evening of April 21 1988, while Abundio Sido and his family were resting inside their house, six men arrived and one shouted ordering him to go out. Abundio invited them to go inside but the group insisted that he go out. Abundio instructed his wife to open the door. The wife accompanied by their daughter who was holding a kerosene lamp proceeded towards the door to open it. They recognized six armed men standing in front of their house wearing fatigue uniforms. One of them, Pablito Rendoque, shouted “fire” to his companions, Esperato Salaquin and Quinciano Rendoque Jr. aimed then fired hitting Abundio who was sitting inside the house. The victim died.

During the trial, the prosecution presented the daughter and the widow of the victim who narrated the incident, identified the perpetrators who were their townmates, testified that appellant Rendoque gave the order to fire the other two fired their guns in obedience to such order.

On the other hand, the appellant testified on their behalf and interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. Appellant Pablito Rendoque claimed that he was at work when the incident occurred and to support this claim, the defense presented several witnesses testifying that he was at his post at about seven in the evening. The other five accused testified that they were in the house of Placido Despojo which is located in another barangay to attend a seminar.

ISSUES:
1. Were the prosecution witnesses credible?
2. Should the defense of alibi be sustained?

RULING:
1. The findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect, and even finality, unless said findings are arbitrary, or facts and circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied by the trial judge which, if considered, would have affected the case. The Court held that the determination of credibility of a witness is within the domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe his demeanor and bodily movements. After thorough review of the records of the appeal, the Court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court.

Moreover, blood or conjugal relationship between a witness and the victim does not per se impair the credibility of the witness, on the contrary, relationship itself could strengthen credibility in a particular case, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. The fact that the witnesses were the daughter and the widow of the deceased could not impair their credibility.

For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed, it must likewise be shown that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The appellant was seen by the defense witnesses at his post at 7:00 in the evening, while the shooting incident occurred at 8:00 in the evening. There is no proof of physical impossibility for the appellants to be present in the locus criminis. Alibi is a weak defense and should be rejected when the identities of the accused have been sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the offense.

NOTES:

Hearsay Rule

Failing to demolish the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellants now make a belated attempt to impeach their testimonies. Appellants fault the trial court for not considering the Affidavit of Celso Turtal that Florida Sido told him that the assailants were “unidentified men.” The trial court correctly disregarded said affidavit for being hearsay since Turtal did not testify in court. An affidavit is generally hearsay, and has no probative value unless the affiant himself is placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. Hence, the trial court correctly rejected the admission of such affidavit in evidence.

Police Blotters as evidence

As to the police logbook which was presented in evidence to prove the contents thereof, we have held that entries in the police blotter should not be given undue significance or probative value, as they do not constitute conclusive proof of the truth thereof. Entries in police blotters, although regularly done in the course of the performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth stated in such entries and should not be given undue significance or probative value because they are usually incomplete and inaccurate. Sometimes they are based on partial suggestion or inaccurate reporting and hearsay, untested in the crucible of a trial on the merits.

Full text: People vs Rendoque G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000