On credibility of witness, alibi and treachery

When it comes to the matter of credibility of a witness.

Settled are the guiding rules some of which are that:

(1) the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case;

(2) the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of a witness is entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand, and, therefore, can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not; and

(3) a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.

Jurisprudence also tells us that when a testimony is given in a candid and straightforward manner, there is no room for doubt that the witness is telling the truth. (People v. Jalbonian, G.R. No. 180281, July 1, 2013).

On matters of alibi.

For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.(People v. Hatsero, G.R. No. 192179, July 3, 2013.) These requirements of time and place must be strictly met.

Court have consistently assigned less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives since it was established in jurisprudence that, in order for corroboration to be credible, the same must be offered preferably by disinterested witnesses.(People v. Basallo, G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013) Friends and relatives cannot be considered as a disinterested witness.

It is jurisprudentially settled that positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable.(People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 190340, July 24, 2013)

It is likewise settled that where there is nothing to indicate that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. (People v. Zapuiz, G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013) 

On treachery

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself.

Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.

What is decisive in an appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.(People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014)

As per jurisprudence, when the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter.(People v. Cabtalan, G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012)