TOWARDS A PROPER CHARACTERIZATION OF ALIBI: PHILIPPINE VERSUS AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

Introduction

In criminal law, the accused is armed with a vast array of defenses, both in substantive law, as well as in procedural law. In a criminal case, courts will consider all the facts, circumstances and the defenses raised by the accused and will only promulgate a judgement of conviction if it finds that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.[1] What if, however, the only defense an accused has available to him is Alibi, how must the court consider his defense? What are the procedural means which must be followed when making use of this defense?

Sadly, the law currently views alibi rather simplistically as the “weakest defense.”[2] Jurisprudence has been very consistent with this, as it has ruled in case after case that: “alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable.” [3]

In terms of procedure, no rules currently exist for its appreciation with the exception of the above pronouncements in case law.[4] In the Philippines, alibi is not considered a positive defense, neither is it considered rebuttal evidence. This characterization will have significant implications as to the appreciation of alibi during trial, and which may prejudice an otherwise innocent accused who chooses to raise this defense.

In contrast, alibi in the United States is appreciated very differently from the Philippines. There is a proper procedure for the raising of this specific defense. Furthermore, US courts characterize alibi as more or less a “complete defense.”

In this study, the author will look at the history of the alibi defense in the Philippines, and show the evolution of the defense, or lack thereof. This will be followed by a discussion of how the alibi defense is characterized in the Philippines and America. Lastly, he will discuss American procedure when raising the alibi defense and how juries are instructed to appreciate an alibi with a view to how the Supreme Court or the Legislature may be able to amend the rules on alibi in the future.

History of Alibi in the Philippines

According to the research of Bautista,[5] the first criminal case in which the alibi defense was ever raised in the Philippines was U.S. vs. Cardona,[6] however, in that case, the Supreme Court found that defense “unimportant” because the location of defendant on the date the crime allegedly occurred was not a “material ingredient” for the offense.[7] However, since this first case, the alibi in jurisprudence developed.

It was in U.S. vs. Mabanag[8] where the Supreme Court first explained the doctrine that alibi cannot prevail over positive testimony. Specifically, the Supreme Court said: “The evidence produced by the defendant to prove an alibi is not sufficient to overcome the positive testimony of two persons who identified him as the author of the assault in question.” A few months later, in U.S. vs. Santiago, the court expounded on the weakness of the alibi defense namely that: “having regard to the facility with which such a defense may be fabricated, we cannot attach to the evidence sufficient weight to bring into doubt the positive and in all respects satisfactory evidence of the prosecution connecting the defendants with the crime.”[9] Furthermore, as to evidentiary weight, the Court has also held that the defense of alibi should not be given credence if the corroboration comes from close relatives or friends of the accused and not from disinterested persons. In People v. Sumalinog, the court very specifically explained that kinship or closeness does not automatically discredit a witness, however “if that witness testifies to support the specific defense of alibi, courts view his testimony with skepticism.”[10] The Court explained very early on that this is due to the fact that alibi is very easily fabricated and that it is very easy for the accused to have close friends or relatives corroborate his story.[11] Since these early decisions, Philippine Courts have more or less appreciated the alibi the same way.

In 2010, the case of Lejano vs. People[12] was decided. This case was about the sensational Vizconde massacre wherein Hubert Webb, a “scion of a rich, influential, and politically powerful family,[13]” was accused of having committed the gruesome crime. Among other defenses, Webb raised the defense of alibi, claiming that he was in America at the time the massacre occurred. In support of this claim, he presented witness as well as object and documentary evidence such as his travel preparations, his despedida party, his immigration checks and he gave details of his sojourn and purchases made in the US.[14] In spite of this evidence, the lower courts held that the alibi defense is weak and would not prevail over the positive identification of the prosecution’s star witness, the police asset, Jessica Alfaro.[15] The Supreme Court however, thought differently and exonerated Webb based on the evidence he presented.

The success of the alibi defense in Lejano hinged on the fact that the witness who gave positive testimony of Hubert Webb as being one of the authors of the massacre was not credible because of her history as a police asset and as a “stool pigeon” who only came forward 4 years after the massacre,[16] as well as the strength of Webb’s documentary evidence to prove that he was out of the country. However, while Lejano threatened to buck the prevailing doctrine of the alibi defense, the result nevertheless seems disappointing because the court did not take the opportunity to “judicially legislate” procedural rules for alibi defenses, in spite of a good opportunity to do so. However, the court did take the opportunity to remind the lower courts to:

[N]ot all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but denial and alibi. So how can such accused penetrate a mind that has been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a hangman’s noose in the face of a witness positively swearing, “I saw him do it.”? Most judges believe that such assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to fabricate. This quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how else can the truth that the accused is really innocent have any chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast tenet?

There is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind. He must guard against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and unequivocally, “He did it!” without blinking an eye.[17]

The Supreme Court further declared that the quantum of evidence required by the lower courts in order to prove the element of physical impossibility of being at the crime scene in the Lejano case is so high, such that the only acceptable alibi in the Philippines would be the passage of the accused “into the next life,” and because of this, the Court “must abandon this unjust and inhuman paradigm.”[18] However, several years after this pronouncement, meaningful change in the jurisprudence or procedure has yet to occur because the prevailing doctrine remains that alibi is the weakest defense.

How Alibi is Characterized in the Philippines

Although alibi is a very common defense in Philippine courts, it is confounding to note that no provision exists in our Rules of Court that deals with this defense, criteria is limited to jurisprudence,[19] and apparently, no doctrine is more jurisprudentially settled in the Philippines than that alibi is “the weakest defense,”[20] or variations of this theme, such as alibi being “inherently weak,” and which must be “brushed aside” when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[21]

The author believes that part of the problem has to do with the fact that the prosecution and the Courts have no guidance with respect to procedure, as well as how to appreciate the defense. In the first case, alibi is considered a mere “negative defense.”[22] Compounding the problem, aside from being defined as a defense, alibi is also defined as a form of “evidence,”[23] and is thus also considered a factual issue with its own weight and sufficiency of proof.[24] In some early cases, the court held that it should be proven by probable evidence,[25] while in many later cases, it was held that it should be proven by positive, clear and convincing evidence.[26]

In making an alibi defense, an accused more or less admits that a crime has taken place, however, the accused was simply too far away from the scene of the crime that he could not have committed it.[27] The fact that an accused admits the act or omission charged, makes alibi partake of the characteristics of an affirmative defense. However, raising this defense does not have the effect of reversing trial as provided for in Section 11, Rule 119 which provides that the Prosecution shall be the first to present evidence to prove the charge, followed by the accused who shall present evidence on his defense, except when: “When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.”[28]

As mentioned, instead of treating alibi as an affirmative defense, the courts instead treat it as a negative defense, that is, the accused is merely allowed to deny the State’s claim. A desirable side-effect of this characterization is that if an accused’s alibi defense does not convince the court of his innocence, the failure of the defense alone will not convict the accused.[29]

How Alibi is Characterized in the United States

In stark contrast to Philippine jurisprudential rules on alibi, American jurisprudence has been much more accommodating on accused interposing this defense. US courts have declared that alibi, “if established, constitutes a complete, legitimate, and effective defense and precludes the possibility of guilt.[30]”

The question thus arises if whether or not alibi may be considered an affirmative defense in the US. In the United States, as in the Philippines, there is no definite pronouncement as to whether alibi is an affirmative defense or not as some American authorities consider alibi as merely a “rebuttal” defense while others consider it an affirmative defense which the accused has the burden of establishing.[31] Since it is neither an affirmative or rebuttal defense, alibi should simply be characterized as a “complete and direct denial of the state’s case,”[32] the distinction being that that an affirmative defense admits the act charged but seeks to justify the act or exempt or mitigate liability, while an alibi defense essentially denies that the accused committed the act charged.[33] In the U.S., evidence to prove an alibi is not regarded as an attempt to prove an independent, affirmative defense. The prosecution still has the burden of proving the accused’s presence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused may, by any legitimate evidence, rebut or disprove this essential factor in the case for the prosecution.[34]

Jury Instructions

In the U.S., criminal cases are tried before juries, hence Judges are tasked with giving instructions to juries as to the “burden of proof” required of the prosecution and of the accused as to their respective defenses. With regards to alibi however, Judges would often omit the phrase “burden of proof” as to the existence of an alibi.[35] And instead of focusing the attention of the jury on the question whether the alibi has been proved the Court instead regards evidence to prove an alibi in the same light as any other evidence tending to disprove guilt or to disprove the case for the prosecution, with the cumulative effect of producing reasonable doubt on the entire case, which may lead to an acquittal.[36] Indeed, it has been held that jury instructions which indicate or even suggest that the accused satisfy a higher degree of proof in establishing an alibi are improper,[37] as is an instruction where the jury may infer guilt from its disbelief of the accused’s alibi.[38] This is in stark contrast with the Philippine treatment of the defense which requires the defense to prove the alibi by clear and convincing evidence.[39]

Notice Requirement

Before an alibi defense reaches the trial stage however, some States, and Courts at the Federal level,[40] would require that the accused give notice to the prosecution of their intention to rely on an alibi defense and to specify the place where the accused claims to have been when the crime was committed and the witnesses on whose testimony they will rely on in establishing the defense.[41] Non-compliance with this requirement may bar the alibi.[42] The purpose of this notice, in view of the ease of fabricating an alibi, is to prevent last-minute surprises on the prosecution and to enable it to make a full and thorough investigation of the merits of the defense.[43]

Conclusion

The bias against the alibi defense in the Philippines is very strong. More than one hundred years of jurisprudence stating that alibi is the weakest defense, easy to fabricate and can never prevail against prevail against positive identification of the accused can potentially cause injustice against those falsely accused, but who chose to raise alibi as a defense. Part of the reason for this is the lack of procedural rules which Courts must follow when an accused raises an alibi, as well as an inherent bias and dependence on a presumption that alibi was raised for self-serving purposes. The Philippine Supreme Court and the Legislature should probably look to how their American counterparts treat the alibi defense. In contrast to Philippine rules, American jurisprudence has a much higher regard for this defense and provide proper procedural guidance for their prosecutors and their Courts both before and after a trial. Their requirement that an alibi defense must be raised at the earliest possible moment likewise confers credibility to the defense, as does the “relaxed” burden of proof requirement for proving an alibi which is more consistent with the idea that an alibi constitutes a complete, legitimate and effective defense.

---

[1] Rev. Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, sec. 2

[2] Modesto A. Ticman, Jr., Updates in Criminal Law, 4 (2016)

[3] People vs. Veloso, 690 SCRA 586 (2013); People vs. Banzuela, 712 SCRA 735 (2013);

[4] Rodolfo Pompeyo Cabrillas, Annotation, The Theory of Alibi, 54 SCRA 369 (1973).

[5] Melissa A. Bautista, Buying the Alibi: Challenging the Jurisprudential Doctrine that Alibi is the Weakest Defense, Unpublished Thesis, Ateneo de Manila Law School (2010)

[6] 1 Phil. 381 (1902)

[7] Ibid p. 383

[8] 1 Phil. 441 (1902), p. 442

[9] U.S. vs. Santiago, 1 Phil 545 (1902), p. 547

[10] People vs. Sumalinong, G.R. No. 128387, February 5, 2004, 422 SCRA 55 (2004)

[11] U.S. vs. De Jesus, 2 Phil. 514 (1902), p. 525

[12] 638 SCRA 104, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010

[13] Ibid p. 248

[14] Ibid pp. 145-149

[15] Ibid p. 149

[16] Ibid p. 133

[17] Ibid p. 149-150

[18] Ibid p. 152

[19] Supra, Note 4.

[20] But see People vs. Sumalinong, Supra Note 10 p.63, where the Supreme Court stated that alibi is: “concededly the weakest defense.”

[21] People vs. Manigo, 714 SCRA 551; People vs. Las Piñas, 730 SCRA 571; People vs. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA 687 (2014) ; People vs. Estonilo, G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014, 738 SCRA 204 (2014).

[22] Alicia Gonzales-Decano, Annotation, Denial and Alibi, 84 Phil Rep. Annot. 945, 951.

[23] Ibid p. 946

[24] People vs. Apa-ap, Jr. G.R. No. 110993, August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA 468 (1994); People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 21

[25] U.S. vs. Oxiles 29 Phil. 587 (1915) 592 G.R. No. L-9999; February 23, 1915 , People vs. Cinco 67 Phil. 196 (1939) 199 G.R. No. L-46144; April 5, 1939, People vs. De Guzman 70 Phil. 23 (1940) 26 G.R. No. 47228; June 17, 1940,

[26] Supra Note 2 p. 5

[27] Supra Note 20 p.946

[28] 2000 Rev. Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 119, sec. 11

[29] Supra Note 4 p.370

[30] 21 Am Jur 2d § 220

[31] 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 951

[32] Supra Note 30

[33] Ibid

[34] 29 ALR 1127

[35] Ibid

[36] Ibid

[37] 75A Am. Jur. 2d Trial § 1065

[38] Ibid

[39] Supra Note 2 at 5

[40] Federal Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 12.1(a)

[41] 21 Am Jur 2d § 223

[42] Ibid.

[43] 21 Am Jur § 224

THE BOOGEYMAN IS FINALLY BURIED

 

I woke up this morning and I felt strangely refreshed.  It felt as though a huge weight had been lifted off of my shoulders.  As you know, the family of Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos buried him yesterday morning in a discreet and intimate burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).  For the past 30 or so years after his death, Marcos had been kept in a refrigerated casket for all the world to see, his corpse was gawked at or venerated and defiled.  His mortal remains were used as a symbol by loyalists and pro-Aquino alike, sowing division.  It is because of this that President Duterte once and for all decided to put the issue and his mortal remains to rest.  Make no mistake about it, this was a political decision calculated to end division between the loyalists and the pro-Aquino—this does not change the past, but sets a course for our future unburdened by Boogeymen and infighting.

 

I am glad he is buried now and out of sight.  Like Mark Anthony speaking at Caesar’s funeral in Shakespeare’s play, I would simply like to say that “I have come to bury Marcos, not to praise him.  The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones…”  And so it is with Marcos.  I hope you do not think that simply because he has been buried, his sins are buried with him.

 

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”

Now that he has been buried, I believe that this country can now really and truly move forward.  While his corpse was above ground, he was the Boogeyman—a legendary monster, a story to spook children from misbehaving.  During the second Aquino administration, it seemed like a running joke to talk about the ills of Martial Law all the while abuses and mismanagement continued.  Our history should never be used to cover up or justify present abuse.  Neither does it justify partisanship when all camps are guilty of mismanagement and abuse.  I sincerely hope that supporters of both sides open their eyes and see things who what it is, both the loyalist camp and the pro-Aquino camp used your hatreds for political ends and took you all for a ride. 

 

For the victims, nothing can replace what you have lost and what you have endured.  The government has recognized this as a turbulent time in our history.  Evil heathen forces carrying Mao Zedong’s ideas and Lenin’s hammer and sickle banner were at our gates.  Marcos chose to fight fire with fire.  The jury is still out on this.  History far removed from partisanship will judge him, as God surely has already.  Today Marcos is buried and worms tear at his flesh, yet the very architects of the Martial Law regime, Juan Ponce Enrile and Former President Fidel Ramos live and enjoy a pride of place in our government.  Victims, you will get more answers and closure from the living than with the dead.

 

Nor do I feel like we have “violated” our history in having him buried there.  As  I said, the jury is still out on this one.  Some groups insist that we as a people are suffering collective amnesia for allowing this, but I say that we are  suffering collective amnesia about those days when Martial Law was declared.  Why was Martial Law declared?  Was it the sensible thing to do at the time?  Was it really the ultimate evil that some groups would have us  believe?  Did we benefit from Martial Law?  The jury is still out on all of these questions.  Hopefully, history will decide with impartiality. 

 

Let us be clear here.  This was not a “hero’s burial.”  This was a plain and simple burial.  Some groups insist that what was done was a hero’s burial.  Well, if they insist.  As earlier mentioned, when a man is buried, the evil he has done lives after him, and the good is often interred with his bones, but this is not strictly correct, Marcos’s legacy spans the full spectrum of very good to the very bad.  We knew he was after the common good, and legislation in the 1970s-80s demonstrated very forward and enlightened thinking.  Contemporary Congresses are hard pressed to match his legal corpus with laws on Muslim family relations, laws on child and youth welfare, laws on labor, laws on overseas workers, laws on land reform, laws on criminal law spanning crimes, penology and procedure, commercial laws on corporations, insurance, still in active use today! Government agencies and corporations were also created to match his vision for the country.  His legacy is not only in the realm of ideas, but also infrastructure, especially in far flung areas, and the modern demography of Mindanao owes it to Marcos’ decision to promote Mindanao as an area for lowland Filipinos to settle in.  Though, I have to admit, this has had grave consequences for the Muslims and indigenous peoples living there, leading to continuous war and strife in the region.  He has made decisions good and bad, he has made contributions both good and bad—these are a given because of his office and title, as even the most enlightened of statesmen would be forced to make difficult decisions.  Marcos was a President of this country, the hard decisions were his to make and only history can judge him now.  

President, Pure Evil or “Boogeyman,” history removed from partisanship

will decide in its own good time

 

If there is anything I want justice for, it would be for the ill-gotten wealth.  With this burial, I hope the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) will find renewed drive and vigor to recover the ill-gotten wealth.  Please take heart, all is not lost, as Imee Marcos has admitted, the cases for this ill-gotten wealth remain pending with the courts, so please see these cases through. 

 

In the meantime, the country must move on, and move on we will, less one Boogeyman and less one corpse defiled and used by supporters and detractors alike.

WAR ON DRUGS:

A GAME OF THE GENERALS

To those not familiar, Game of the Generals is a board game, which involve two players moving pieces on a board, much like the better known game of chess.  This game, unlike chess, introduces an element of deceit and “fog-of-war”.

In a “General’s” game, the player sets up his pieces in a freeform manner, and tries to protect his flag while trying to outflank his opponent and capture his “flag” unit. Each piece belongs to one of several unit types each with varying strengths with different qualities, the exact unit type is not known to the opponent as each piece is undistinguishable from another, save for markings which only the unit owner and the referee (a neutral third person) can see.  For example, a piece known as the “5-star general” can pretty much “kill” any other opposing unit, but is vulnerable to a “spy” unit; spies however, can be killed by a “private”.  The way a player arranges his pieces and how well he presents his “poker face” to the public, are factors that come into play in this game.

This war on drugs is figuratively and quite literally a game of the Generals.  Figuratively, because there is always an element of deception, and literally because of the personalities who may be involved.

Now, what I am about to say contains a lot of speculation and opinion. A lot of this is hearsay, so take this with a grain of salt, but these rumors are so widespread now that this is what the “non-chattering” public would claim to be the truth.

The Executive Department as a Neutral Referee
Quite literally, it seems that the Executive department, under the watch of President Duterte is acting as a “Neutral Referee”—the third man in a Game of the Generals match.  The referee in this case is a non player, all he does is watch the game progress and calls out which piece wins a challenge.  He lets the players have at it with one another.  In this case, he merely watches as the drug lords, their coddlers and the low level pushers make mince meat out of one another.  He is content and satisfied to watch the players destroy one another as the narcotics trade in the country implodes from within.  And, like a mischievous referee, he would sometimes drop hints about “who” these pieces on the board really are, to the glee of the captive Filipino audience clamoring for blood.

In a word, it is “masterful” 
First, it was low level pushers, the lieutenants, dropping one by one.  The public has accepted that these deaths (I dare not glorify it with the use of the term, “Extrajudicial Killing”) were perpetrated by corrupt policemen, mayors and drug lords trying to cover any evidence.  Now, the drug lords and the mayors themselves seems to be the targets—the coddlers of the low level pushers are now the targets of their coddlers.

Who are these coddlers of the drug lords?  It seems that these are people in high places.  These are your senators and generals.  Take the case of the recently slain Melvin “Dragon” Odicta.  It is widely known (rumored) that he has connections with some powerful senators.  He spoke with DILG Secretary Mike Sueno and suggested that he surrender to the police with “some conditions”.  This didn’t help him though.  The widely circulating rumor is that he was killed by some police and military men.  The lawyers who were supposed to meet him were being prevented from coming to him.  Clearly, somebody powerful and with a high position wanted him silenced.

Who killed the Dragon?

Another example is the currently at large (or should we presume him dead?) druglord Kerwin Espinosa who has supposed links with a “senator”

Rolando Espinosa:  Look at his pitiable mug. 

I wouldn’t want to be him

Given these circumstances, all I can say is "Wow".  It looks like the Executive department decided to let the drug lords and their coddlers play a game of the generals with one another and he is the referee.  Masterful.

A Word of Advice to Drug Lords and Pushers (NSFW)

You know who you are, and you know who are after you.  You weren’t born yesterday and your predicament certainly didn’t happen overnight.

Turn yourselves over to the police, tell them who and what you know.

If this doesn’t sound enticing, please, strongly consider the alternative.  Kill your coddler.  If you are a pusher, kill the mayor who coddles you.  If you are the mayor, kill the general who coddles you.  If you are the general, please kill the senator who coddles you.  Dead men tell no tales.  Kill him first, before he kills you.

Meanwhile, the common, sit glued before their TV sets and tabloids cheering on as more and more of your kind get your well-deserved deaths.

Endnote

We’ve all heard about the Davao City bombing, I just want to say that my sympathies go out to the victims and those left behind.  Terrorism, like drugs, is one of those ills which needs to be snuffed out of our country before things go out of control.

#staystrongDavao #OneNation #thearchipelago

PEOPLE v. QUIDATO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR., accused-appellant.

Topic:  Disqualifications as a witness; when it applies.

FACTS:

Accused Bernardo Quidato Jr was accused of parricide.  He and two co-conspirators allegedly attacked with a bolo and iron bars hack and stab the victim, Bernardo Quidato Sr., appellant’s father and namesake, which caused the victim’s untimely demise. 

Among those presented as witness were accused’s wife and brother.  Also presented were the extrajudicial confessions of appellant’s two other co-accused.  Appellant’s wife testified that while the accused were drinking tuba she overheard them saying that they were planning to go to the victim’s house on the night of the incident in order to “get money” and that she had no idea of what later transpired. Appellant objected to his wife’s testimony as it was prohibited by the rule on marital disqualification.  Appellant likewise denies the allegations of his co-accused who in their extrajudicial confession pointed to the participation of appellant.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions should be given credence as they were obtained in violation of the constitutional right of appellant to confront witnesses.

2. Whether or not the testimony of appellant’s wife is disqualified.

HELD:

1. NO. They should not be given credence, and indeed, appellant should be acquitted.  The prosecution relied heavily on appellant’s co-accused’s affidavits.  However, the failure to present the affiants in the witness stand gives these affidavits the character of hearsay.  It is hornbook doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay. “The voluntary admissions of an accused made extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against his co-accused when the latter had not been given an opportunity to hear him testify and cross-examine him.”

Section 30, Rule 130 is not applicable in this case because it refers to confessions made during the existence of the conspiracy.  In this case, the conspiracy had clearly ended by the time the confession was made.

2. YES.  The testimony of appellant’s wife must be disregarded.  As correctly observed by the court a quo, the disqualification is between husband and wife, the law not precluding the wife from testifying when it involves other parties or accused, but not where the testimony will be used against the accused-husband directly or indirectly.

DECISION: 

Given the inadmissibility of accused’s wife’s testimony and the extrajudicial confession of co-accused, the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED.

PEOPLE vs. ACUÑA

ACUÑA, JESUS RAMOS and ANTONIO (TONY) DIONISIO, defendants.

Topic:  Qualification of adult witnesses.

FACTS: 

Defendants were charged with murder.  The complaint stated that they conspired together and assaulted the victim, Tranquilino Mariano, and while two of the accused were holding him, one was hitting him by a 2x2 piece of wood.  Then they stabbed him to death.  There were a number of witnesses who saw the beating and another who saw the accused dragging a dead body.

The RTC convicted the accused and hence this appeal.  The main issue in this appeal is the credibility of the witnesses.  Accused claim that they should have noticed the witnesses if they claim to have been there when the crime was happening, the fact that accused “did not notice the witnesses’ presence” makes their testimony incredible. The witnesses were also first cousins of the victims and they failed to report the incident immediately.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the witnesses’ testimony is incredible.

HELD:

NO.  First, where the issue is the credibility of the witness, the Supreme Court, as a general rule will not disturb the findings of the lower courts as regards to their findings of the witnesses’ credibility. 

As to the fact that accused “did not notice” the presence of the witnesses, it was correctly pointed out by the prosecution that the accused were probably too engrossed with their assault to have noticed the witnesses.  Besides, the area where the incident occurred was partly concealed by gumamela plants hence it was possible for the witnesses to see the incident without being seen.

It is also true that the witnesses were first cousins but “there is nothing in our laws that disqualifies relatives of a victim from testifying in a criminal case … so long as said relatives who were actually present at the scene of the crime, witnessed its execution.”  Furthermore, there was no showing of ill-motive.

The fact that they failed to report the incident immediately is also understandable. The accused were locally known troublemakers who would intimidate people once they fell under the influence of liquor.  The court also takes judicial notice that the witnesses were town mates and must have feared reprisals.  Such reticence has been declared as not affecting credibility.

The witness who saw the accused dragging the cadaver, likewise reported the incident 6 months after the incident.  The court held that this does not affect the credibility of the as it relates to a matter that occurred after the crime was committed and merely corroborates the testimony of two other credible witnesses (the cousins) who actually witnessed the incident.

DECISION: Guilty.

RONULO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Citation:  G.R. No. 182438, July 02, 2014

Ponente:  Brion, SECOND DIVISION

FACTS:

On March 29, 2003, Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry one another.  On the day of the wedding, at the Roman Catholic Church of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, the priest refused to marry them when he learned that the couple did not have a marriage license. Instead, the couple, already dressed in their wedding attire and with their parents and friends, proceeded to the Aglipayan church and requested Petitioner, an Aglipayan Priest to marry them to which he proceeded to marry the couple. 

An information for violation of Article 352 of the RPC, was filed against the petitioner before the MTC of Batac, Ilocos Norte for allegedly performing an illegal marriage ceremony.

The petitioner pleaded “not guilty” and while he admitted that he conducted a ceremony, denied that his act of “blessing” the couple was tantamount to a solemnization of the marriage as contemplated by law.

The MTC found petitioner guilty of violating Art. 352 of the Revised Penal Code for conducting an illegal marriage ceremony.  The RTC affirmed as did the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner conducted a “blessing” and not an [illegal] marriage ceremony.

HELD:

Petitioner conducted an illegal marriage ceremony.  The crime as provided for in Art 352 of the RPC refers to the performance of marriages under Articles 3 and 6 of the Family Code which reads:

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

x x x

(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

x x x

Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer.

. . .

 The Supreme Court explained that what made the petitioner's act a marriage ceremony and not just a mere blessing was that while there is no prescribed form or religious rite, all that was required was “for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife.”

As to the first requirement, the petitioner admitted that the parties appeared before him and this fact was testified to by witnesses. On the second requirement, we find that, contrary to the petitioner’s allegation, the prosecution has proven, through the testimony of witnesses, that the contracting parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife.  Thus, it is clear that petitioner conducted a marriage ceremony and not a mere blessing.

The marriage ceremony was also illegal.  The Supreme Court stated that:

Under Article 3(3) of the Family Code, one of the essential requisites of marriage is the presence of a valid marriage certificate. In the present case, the petitioner admitted that he knew that the couple had no marriage license, yet he conducted the “blessing” of their relationship.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage ceremony despite knowledge that the essential and formal requirements of marriage set by law were lacking. The marriage ceremony, therefore, was illegal. The petitioner’s knowledge of the absence of these requirements negates his defense of good faith.

We also do not agree with the petitioner that the lack of a marriage certificate negates his criminal liability in the present case. For purposes of determining if a marriage ceremony has been conducted, a marriage certificate is not included in the requirements provided by Article 3(3) of the Family Code, as discussed above.

Neither does the non-filing of a criminal complaint against the couple negate criminal liability of the petitioner. Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not make this an element of the crime.

The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

ANALYSIS OF THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO DEMONSTRATION

RELIGIOUS, PHILSOSOPHICAL AND LEGAL BASIS? RESULT?

(Note: First posted September 4.  4 days after the end of the demonstration. Edited September 5, 2015)

This essay is anti-Iglesia ni Cristo, to INC readers, you have my permission to hate.  It doesn’t matter.  At the end of the day, reflect on what I had to say.  Much of what I wrote is based on my observations and through careful study of the law so you may have chance to cleanse your image before your countrymen.

(source: Catholic defender blog)

It is an understatement to say that when the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) massed in front of the Department of Justice building in Padre Faura on August 27 in order to demonstrate against what they thought was religious persecution, we were all caught off guard.  Then by the afternoon of August 28, we see that they have moved their rally to the busy thoroughfare of EDSA.  This truly had analysts, the press and politicians stumped.  

The backlash from social media was tremendous.  The sect was vilified by most netizens who had suffered the inconvenience of the long-weekend “Carmaggedon”.

This begs so many questions.  What were the INC trying to achieve?

When does religion end and politics begin?  It seems that the homegrown sect Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) does not know the boundaries either.

Merits of the argument for the separation of Church and State are easily dispensed with

I've been monitoring developments regarding this INC protest rally and so far none of the arguments they have posted on social media or what they have been chanting on the streets are compelling or on point. The Church leadership is very weak intellectually and rely only on the "Unity" it has demanded from its members.

From the very first argument, on the Separation of Church and State, it is clear that the DOJ investigation that triggered the protest never affected the member's religious freedom. It is completely not on point.

The claim that government should focus on Mamasapano, DAP, Yolanda, etc. only serve to muddle the issue and to garner sympathy as well as discredit the government. To be fair to Secretary Leila de Lima and to Samson, his act of going straight to the head of the DOJ is justified. The INC is a very influential sect, at the grassroots, they possess thugs and goons ready to intimidate lowly prosecutors--its very hard to get a criminal case filed if it involves the an INC member, all the more if the suspect is the Sanggunian itself. I have seen this happen personally and I'm sure that many have experienced their mafia-like way of doing things, so going to the Prosecutor's Office simply isn't enough. The Philippine Daily Inquirer editorial staff seems to agree:

But it needs to be said; precisely because the church is an influential institution, the Samson family was justified in filing the case with De Lima’s office herself, not with a local prosecutor. There is nothing unusual about this arrangement; it happens all the time. Indeed, the INC has been known to go straight to the DOJ on certain occasions, rather than to, say, the prosecutors’ office in Quezon City where its headquarters is located. No abuse of discretion; no unusual attention. It was as it should be.

Comparison to the Black Nazarene and the Papal Visit aren't on point either. These events are proper exercises of religious freedom, and in the case of the Papal visit, it may also be treated as the visit from the head of a foreign government. From a planning and execution standpoint, permits and detours had been planned well in advance giving commuters a chance to find alternate routes and be appraised of the situation.

The INC have only succeeded where they have not on the strength of their beliefs, but on the strength of their 2 million voters, the wealth of their church which could sustain moving thousands from the provinces (money which could have been better used in missionary and charitable activity) and the general low intelligence and blind allegiance of its members.

Columnist Bobi Tiglao opined that the reason why the DOJ is investigating the members of INC’s Sanggunian is because the INC has refused to support Mar. Roxas’ bid for Presidency. If this is the case then, this whole demonstration was mere Political Zarzuela.  Was freedom of religion merely invoked as an afterthought?  An attempt to pull the heartstrings of the emotional and religious Filipino?  It seems that the majority has seen through the artifice.  

The political bandwagon

A number of big name politicos have decided to place their bets on this crisis, namely;

VP Jejomar Binay - “[A] clear act of harassment and interference from the administration . . . Religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. Yet the administration chose to trample on this sacred right. What we are seeing are people fighting for their faith.”

It seems that our dear Vice President and lord of Makati has been reading conspiracy theories.  Be that as it may, prosecution for crimes does not equal persecution of religion.

Sen. Grace Poe - “Huwag nating mamaliitin ang importansya ng relihiyon . . . Para sa akin, ang mga tao na yan, ang dinedepensahan nila ay ang kanilang paniniwala. Nirerespeto natin 'yan at kailangan ay pangalagaan din ang kanilang mga karapatan”

To be fair to Grace Poe and to Jejomar, they do have a point.  Everyone has a right to free speech.  Most important of this is political free speech.  As held in Reyes vs. Bagatsing:

Free speech and peaceable assembly, along with the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the judiciary, — even more so than on the other departments — rests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitiously termed by Justice Holmes "as the sovereign prerogative of judgment." Nonetheless, the presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such rights, enjoying as they do precedence and primacy.

It seems that what riled people up is the seeming favoritism that was given to the INC.  The feeling that the government was not working for the common good and that the ordinary “mamamayan” was left out again.  In this case, it seems that these statements made by Sen. Grace Poe and Jejomar, while legally correct, came out as callous and insincere.

It also comes out as ironic that we must defend the right of the INC to free speech and demonstration when the INC itself does not grant the same right to its members.

Sen. Bongbong Marcos - “For justice to triumph, the DOJ must not only be impartial in its procedure and ruling; like Caesar's wife, it must also be seen as being fair to all . . . The DOJ's handling of the case leaves much to be desired. Instead of allowing the legal process to take its course, DOJ secretary Leila de Lima immediately held a press con to discuss the merits of the case. This created the impression, rightly or wrongly, of undue interest in the case.”

I expected more from you Senator Bongbong to be honest.  Though I admit that you have a point.  This war of the Zombies (see below) was a war to win the hearts and minds of the Filipinos.  It seems however that where you and the INC saw de Lima taking undue interest in the case, the majority became indignant at the self-righteous, hypocritical and iskwater act of the INC in holding the demonstration.

Secretary Mar Roxas - “While all citizens have the right to be heard and to peaceful assembly, the exercise of these rights cannot impinge on the rights of others or cause inconvenience to anyone.”

His message however was diluted by his instruction to the police to exercise maximum tolerance.

All in all, these politicians have made valid arguments.  The problem however is that the anger of the majority was running at an all-time high such that those caught defending the INC received criticism.  To be fair, the standard operating procedure of the government, when it comes to rallies from religious groups is to treat the group with kids gloves.  The practice is indeed different for militant groups who will be sprayed with water the moment they get too rowdy.  I suppose that it has to do with the high regard Filipinos traditionally place on religion.

War of the Zombies

Here, two zombie groups clashed.  On one side were the Manalo Cult Zombies: urban and provincial poor were told by their leaders to troop over to EDSA in order to defend their religion.  These people may be likened to zombies because of their seemingly blind allegiance and obedience to their leaders, many of whom, when interviewed, could not explain the reason for their demonstration.

Aftermath

The INC dispersed on August 31, Monday.  They claimed victory and their spokesperson claimed that they had come to an agreement and understanding with the government.  

The lack of details regarding this agreement has troubled the citizens, with President Noynoy Aquino once again being accused of secret negotiations.  The Palace has denied the existence of any agreement.

The victory claimed by the INC is a hollow one.  Its ability to actually deliver the bloc vote has been questioned.  Its ability to muster its members to a cause is doubted.  Reports stated that members of the INC who were against the rally have received physical threats and/or were threatened with expulsion.  It is quite possible that their flock has been diminished after this ill-advised demonstration.

The below quotation possibly sums up our impression of the demonstration:

Samson’s counsel, Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles, said the rally reeks of “irrationality and non-responsiveness” since it happened at the heels of the former minister’s decision to file a case against Santos and the rest of the Sanggunian, a council of ranking church officials, for illegal detention.

“Instead of answering the allegations at preliminary investigation, they immediately call out the Department of Justice officials as being biased, based solely on their perception that the mere docketing of the case at the main office is already proof of said ‘selective justice.’ And instead of seeking recourse with the courts, they resort to what they think will be the equivalent of public pressure,”

The political ramifications are also immense.  VP Binay and Sen. Grace Poe were both widely panned for their defense of the sect.  The government of Noynoy Aquino was once again perceived as “inutil” for want of speedy resolution of the crisis.  A movement of “reverse block voting” also seems to be brewing whereby politicians endorsed or who have sought endorsement from the INC will be boycotted.  Will this further dilute the INC’s political power?

The lesson here people is to exercise your right to suffrage properly.  And one thing's for sure, the practice of block voting must be stopped.