Esqueda vs. People - Digest

Edgar Esqueda vs People of the Philippines G.R. No. 170222 Facts: A petition for review on certiorari was filed to the Supreme Court regarding the affirmation of  the Court of Appeals to the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Dumaguete City on Criminal Case Nos. 14612 and 14609 of herein respondents common-law spouses Gaudencio Quiquinto and Venancia Aliser respectively against petitioner Edgar Esqueda and one John Doe of 2 counts of Frustrated Homicide. The private respondents respondents were awaked on of before 11 o’ clock in the evening on March 3, 1999 by the accused petitioner who concealed their identities as members of roving patrol in their place and asking for a drink from the household. One of the respondents, Gaudencio Quiquinto opened the door and went outside while his lived-in partner Venancia Aliser followed him and stayed by the door. They found two men outside, one is positively identified as the accused petitioner while the other is not identified. The accused petitioner allegedly stabbed Gaudencio immediately. Aliser tried to ran away but was allegedly stabbed and fell on the ground and was continually inflicted mortal wounds against the victims. The defense anchored on alibi and denial. Presented three witnesses, Claudio, Viviana and Domingo testified before the court that the accused was out sea fishing during the time of the crime. Issue: Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding the latter guilty beyond reasonable doubt of  frustrated homicide and totally disregarding di sregarding the latter’s defense. Held: The Honorable Court did not disregard the defense of the accused petitioner in rendering its decision. The presented alibis and denial by the defense are essentially weak against the positive identifications made by the respondents. For an alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he is somewhere else and it is physically impossible for him to be in the scene for the crime. Physically impossible refers to the distance between the place where the crime has transpired and the place where it was committed, also the facility of  access between the two places. Using the testimonies of the witnesses as evidence, the accused petitioner failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to went to the scene of the crime at the time of the incident. In this case, the defense of alibi failed. The positive identification ide ntification destroys destr oys the defense of alibi giving to such effect to be weak, given as the identification was made with resound and credible.