Forensics Case 5 and 7

5.
PEOPLE vs. FRED JACOLO and NOEL CABILOGAN

G.R. No. 94470, December 16, 1992
FACTS:
Fred Jacolo and Noel Cabilogan were charged with the crime of MURDER. The
Trial Court finds the accused FRED JACOLO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Noel
Cabilogan, the other accused, was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence to establish
conspiracy. In the appeal of Fred Jacolo, he assigned the errors to the trial court.
Appellant seek to discredit the testimony of Josephine Belandres on the ground that her
credibility was impaired by alleged "serious inconsistencies" and "irreconcilable and
unexplained contradictions" regarding certain events.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the inconsistencies of a testimony of a witness affect her
credibility.
HELD:
No. A careful review of the records of this case shows that the testimony of
Josephine Belandres in fact contains certain inconsistencies. The inconsistencies
however concern only minor details which do not affect the credibility of the witness.
She positively identified Fred Jacolo as the assailant. The alleged inconsistency
regarding the identification of the appellant is easily explained. Josephine testified that
they did not know the appellant prior to the stabbing. This was the reason why she
could not immediately name the appellant. The Solicitor General correctly points out
that there is no inconsistency when the husband named the appellant Fred Jacolo before
he died, while the wife had stated that they did not know Fred Jacolo, since her
testimony would be hearsay insofar as her husband’s knowing the accused is concerned.
This Court has previously ruled that where the considerations of visibility are favorable
and the witness does not appear to be biased against the accused, his assertions as to
the identity of the malefactor should be normally accepted. This is more so when the
witness is the victim or his near relative because these witnesses usually strive to
remember the face of the assailant.
7.
PEOPLE vs. VICTOR TIMON, et al

G.R. No. 97841-42 November 12, 1997
FACTS:
The Accused-Appellants Victor Timon, Jose Sampiton, Claro Raya and Jesus
Lagaras were accused of piracy. The defense posits denial and alibi. After "examining
the testimony of prosecution witnesses" who "clearly identified all the accused," and
"clearly narrated the participation" of Lagaras, Raya, Sampiton and Timon vis-a-
vis appellants' denial and alibi, the court a quo rendered its decision finding the four
appellants guilty of the "crime charge."
All four accused appealed to the Court. In their brief, Appellants assigned
"errors" and stated that the court a quo blatantly erred in decreeing that the accused-
appellants were positively identified as the authors of the crime charged when even a
cursory reading of the evidence adduced by the prosecution will unveil the unreliability
and dubiousness of such identification. The court sustained their decision and stated
that the appellants' allegation of suggestiveness in the identification is unsubstantiated.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellants were properly identified by credible

witnesses.
HELD:
Yes. Applying this "totality of circumstances" test to the case at bar, the Court
finds the out-of-court identification of appellants (which is a show-up) admissible and
not in any way violative of their constitutional rights. This is borne out by the following
salient facts. Police Officer Manalo testified that while the crew was unable to give the
names of the suspects, they nonetheless gave him their assurance that they would be
able to identify the pirates "if they see them again."
It is a well-settled rule that the findings of the trial court judge who tried the case
and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal unless there are substantial
facts and circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered,
might affect the result of the case. The trial judge's evaluation of the witness' credibility
deserves utmost respect in the absence of arbitrariness." "The reason for this is that the
trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial."
The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused
by an eyewitness who had no motive to falsely testify, like the prosecution's
eyewitnesses in this case. In view of such positive identification, appellants' alibi is
unavailing and remains weak and impotent.

Forensics Case 5 and 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forensics Case 5 and 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forensics Case 5 and 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.

PEOPLE vs. FRED JACOLO and NOEL CABILOGAN

PEOPLE vs. VICTOR TIMON, et al

Whether or not the accused-appellants were properly identified by credible

You might also like