EVIDENCE – SET B

CASE #7
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
BONFILO MARTINEZ y DE LA ROSA, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, accused.
BONFILO MARTINEZ y DE LA ROSA, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 116918
June 19, 1997

FACTS: (TRIGGER WARNING, because from the narration of the witnesses, malala iyong
nangyari sa rape victim, tho hindi ko ilalagay nang detailed. AGAIN, RAPE IS NO JOKE!
RAPE IS EVIL! END RAPE CULTURE NOW!)

Bonfilo Martinez, appellant (Martinez for brevity) and two other unidentified persons
were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
Victims of this case, were inside the house of Ernesto Buenvinida viewing television
program, said accused, all armed with guns of unknown caliber, tied the hands of the occupants
of the house and feloniously rob the belongings of Buenvinida. In the course of said robbery,
said accused, with the use of force, violence and intimidation, have sexual intercourse with one
Glorivic Bandayon Y Quiajo (Glorivic for brevity), against the latter's will and without her
consent. The felons left after threatening to explode a hand grenade. The group sought the help
of the police.
During the investigation, Glorivic was made to face eight detainees. She was able to
readily recognize Martinez among the group because of the mole on his right cheek. Also, one of
the victims could never be mistaken in Martinez's identity because he could not forget the
prominent mole and its location on his right cheek, as he was the one who instructed him to
unplug the appliances.
Martinez denied the accusation. The court found Martinez guilty, although the imposable
penalty is death, due to the presence of two aggravating circumstances: (1) nighttime and (2)
use of deadly weapon; it was lowered to reclusion perpetua in observance with the
constitutional prohibition against capital punishment.
In the present appellate review, Martinez questioned the credibility of the eyewitnesses,
that they could have mistaken on his identity on the following grounds: (1) of the long interval of
time before they were able to confront him; (2) his face was covered with a handkerchief; and (3)
they could have been so gravely terrified by the criminal act to have their mental faculties
impaired.

ISSUE/S:
WON the testimonies of the eyewitnesses are credible.
HELD:

Yes, the testimonies of the eyewitness are credible. It has long been a well-entrenched
rule of evidence and procedure that the issue of credibility of witnesses is almost invariably
within the exclusive province of a trial court to determine, under the principle that the
findings of trial courts deserve respect from appellate tribunals. 

The foregoing rule notwithstanding, the court expended considerable time and effort to
thoroughly examine the records and objectively assay the evidence before the Highest Court.
However, the SC find no compelling reasons to overturn the lower court's conclusion on the
accuracy and correctness of the witnesses' identification of appellant as one of the persons
who robbed the house of the Buenvinidas and raped Glorivic.

Here, the testimonies of the principal witnesses for the prosecution were not only
consistent with and corroborative of each other. The transcripts of stenographic notes which we
have conscientiously reviewed, further reveal that their narrations before the lower court were
delivered in a clear, coherent and unequivocal manner.

The records also show that the memory of these witnesses were not in any way affected
by the passage of two years and three months since the tragedy. Glorivic categorically stated on
the witness stand that the lapse of those years did not impair her memory and she could still
identify those who raped her. 

Thus, the eyewitness’ testimonies should be given due credence.

CASE #8

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

FACTS:
On the night of September 16, 1946, a band of five men raided and robbed the house of
Eulalio Bedrijo (Eulalio), killing him and carrying away cash and various articles of personal
property.
According to the testimonies of the witness, the robbers started looking for the revolver
of the deceased and threatened to shoot the occupants if they did not deliver it to them. They also
demanded money and upon being threatened, one of the occupants opened the trunk from which
Franco took an ’alcancia’ containing silver coins. Other items stolen were raincoat and
eyeglasses.
Moments thereafter, the Eulalio arrived, and as he was entering the gate, appellant
Ricardo Erit (Ricardo for brevity) told him not to move, and when the former proceeded to enter,
Erit fired at him, causing his death.
Upon the evidence, the lower court found the three above-named defendants: Ricardo
Erit (Ricardo), Leopoldo Erit (Leopoldo), and Peregrino Franco (Peregrino) (the others not
having been brought to trial) guilty of robbery and sentenced them of arresto mayor and prision
correccional, and to pay the heirs of the deceased.
Ricardo alone was pronounced guilty of homicide and, in addition to the above penalty,
was sentenced for this offense to an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor to reclusion
temporal, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.
Peregrino admitted participation in the crime, consequently, Erit brothers put up an alibi.
The case was appealed to the CA where the crime committed was identified as a complex crime
of robbery with homicide, with aggravating circumstances, and that the imposable penalty was
capital punishment.
ISSUE/S:

WON the evidence presented is erroneous; and thus defendants, Erit brothers be
acquitted.
HELD:
Yes. The evidence presented with regards to the witnesses’ narrative was erroneous,
doubtful and uncertain because aside from the witnesses’ affirmation, there is no evidence,
direct or circumstantial, which links the two brothers with the crime in question.
First to consider was the time and the position of the parties. The witnesses were all
inside the house while the robbers, who they said were the Erit brothers, were in the yard. The
house was quite high, high enough at least to permit a man to stand up under the floor. The light
in the house was not described, nor was the part of the house where it was placed revealed.
Further, it is said that there was a moon, but it was not full moon, as some witnesses
erroneously asserted.
Additional notes: The court may take judicial notice of the fact that the moon was in its last quarter on
September 18, 1946, and rose on the 16th at 10:20 p. m. Granting that the night was not overcast, still we are not
satisfied that a quarter moon afforded the people inside the house sufficient light to recognize the people in the yard
with a reasonable degree of certainty.

A person may be recognized through his size, his height, movements, and the shape of his body by another
to whom those features are familiar. Edilberto Bedrijo was not so situated with reference to Ricardo or Leopoldo
Erit. These lived eight kilometers from Bedrijo’s house and were known to Edilberto only because this witness used
to see them in the market.

Moreover, the doubts support in the fact that Edilberto Bedrijo of all the four
witnesses, was the only one who named the Erit brothers. Two of the other witnesses
named only Franco in their extrajudicial statements. The other witness was not examined
or presented at the preliminary investigation although he said he was on hand ready to
testify.

The following Circumstances of affirmative character disclosed by the evidence add to the
uncertainty:

1. There is no indication that Peregrino committed perjury to shield these brothers out of
fear of them.

2. The people whom Peregrino pointed out as his companions were not imaginary persons
but real. Three of them were slain by the police, and so were still alive when they were
incriminated. This clashes with the prosecution’s theory that he falsely implicated them
because they could not refute his statements.

3. The belt of one of the witnesses was found on one of them which was among the personal
property stolen. It is to be presumed from the nature of their business that those men operated
in group and were together when the crime at bar was committed.
4. Erit brothers have not been shown to have any police record or reputation for
lawlessness. As a matter of fact, one of them at least, Ricardo, appears to have gainful
occupations. He was a Carpenter and farmer.

Hence, Erit brothers should be acquitted for the errors found in the evidence thereby
presented.