Weak defense

Alibi is a weak defense because it is easy to concoct and fabricate. To be effective as a defense, the accused must show that he is somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it happened. But even if alibi is a weak defense, the prosecution must still prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof beyond reasonable doubt? Is the testimony of a lone witness enough to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt? Will inconsistencies in the testimony of a lone witness for the prosecution mean that there is no sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt? These are the issues resolved in this case of Gaspar.

Gaspar was one of the workers in a copra plantation located in Bicol. Among his co-workers was his compadre Josep, a family man married to Ning with whom he has four children, the youngest being only four months old. Josep and his family were staying in a 2 ½ by 4 square meters house with a door that has no lock and without any bedroom. So they all slept in the sala usually at about 8 p.m. because it is located away from the center of the town where people usually sleep quite early.

Gaspar, who is still single, usually goes to Josep’s house because it is only about 200 meters away from the house of Paula whom he is courting. In fact when Gaspar asked for the hand of Paula in marriage, Josep acted as father for him.

On the day of the incident, both Josep and Gaspar were in the plantation processing copra. While working, they had an altercation which led to a heated argument as Josep told Gaspar that he is so boastful and advised him not to proceed with his marriage to Paula anymore.

Then, at about 9:30 p.m., when Josep’s family were already sleeping in the sala, Ning was awakened by a sound created by the opening of their door, even if she was then already half asleep with heavy eyelids and so tired because of the day’s household chores. She didn’t mind it at first, thinking it was one of the children wanting to answer the call of nature. But suddenly somebody barged into the house that Ning was able to recognize as Gaspar because they still had a lighted kerosene lamp at the corner of the house, bright enough to illuminate the whole house so that she could nurse their four-month-old youngest child. Once inside, Gaspar went near Josep and immediately stabbed the latter, then pulled the knife dripping with blood and poked it at Ning and warned her not to inform anybody or else he will kill her also. After warning her, Gaspar left and so Ning was able to shout for help.

When charged with the crime of murder with Ning as the lone witness for the prosecution, Gaspar interposed the defense of alibi. He said he was at Paula’s house that evening together with Paula’s father, sister and brother and the latter’s friend. Gaspar said that he and Paula’s brother were already sleeping when they heard shouts outside. Upon verification, he found out that the shouts were coming from the house of Josep asking for help. So he and Paula’s brother went to Josep’s house, took a look at the cadaver but did not go up the house. He also testified that he did not visit Josep’s family the following morning and did not accompany the cadaver to the Municipal Building. He did not attend the wake or the funeral and just stayed at Paula’s house until he was arrested six days later. His testimony was corroborated by Paula and her brother.

The RTC however did not accept Gaspar’s alibi and found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Josep and to pay all the corresponding moral and exemplary damages.

Gaspar appealed the RTC decision to the Supreme Court (SC) contending that the RTC gravely erred in relying on the sole testimony of Ning which is full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies particularly between her statement in the preliminary investigation where she said that the knife was dripping with blood although in her testimony she said that no blood came out of the wound. Also she said during the preliminary investigation that she did not know what the heated argument between her husband and Gaspar was about, but during the trial she testified that Josep told Gaspar that he was so boastful and it would be better for him not to proceed with the marriage. Gaspar also contended that his defense of alibi should have been accepted by the RTC as it was corroborated.

But the SC still affirmed that RTC decision and even increased the damages. The SC ruled that the alleged inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Ning’s testimony are too insignificant to affect Ning’s credibility as a witness. They are only minor lapses which did not impair the essential truthfulness of her narration about what happened that night. She was able to identify Gaspar because there was a lighted kerosene lamp in one corner of the house which has no partitions and only 2 1/2 by 4 meters in area. She could not have been mistaken as to the identity of Gaspar as the latter had been frequenting their residence.

On the other hand, Gaspar’s alibi cannot prevail over Ning’s positive identification of him as the author of the crime. For alibi to prosper as a defense, it is not enough that the accused is somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must also show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Here, he himself said that he was staying at his girlfriend’s house which is just 200 meters away (People vs. Necerio, G.R. 98430, July 10, 1992).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected].