People v Malimit DOCTRINE: The non-disclosure by the witness to the police officers of appellant's identity immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human experience. In fact the natural reticence of most people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate neighbors, as in this case, is of judicial notice. FACTS: •
•
•
•
At pm, !nofre !nofre "ala#i$victim% "ala#i$victim% was attending attending to his store. store. "ala#i's "ala#i's houseboy houseboy &dilberto &dilberto atin, was busy coo#ing supper at the #itchen located at the bac# of the store (lorencio )ondon, a farmer, arrived at the store of "ala#i. to purchase chemical for his rice farm atin had just finished coo#ing, he proceeded directly to the store to as# "ala#i if supper is to be prepared. As atin stepped inside the store, he saw accused &rcarnacion *"anolo+ "alimit coming out of the store with a bolo while his boss, bathed in his own blood, was sprawled on the floor struggling for his life )ondon, who was outside and barely five $% meters away from the store, also saw accused "alimit rushing out through the front door of "ala#i's store with a blood-stained bolo o
•
•
Aided by the illumination coming from a pressure lamp inside the store, )ondon clearly recognied "alimit
oth atin and )ondon rushed to the nearby house of "ala#i's brother-in-law &utiuio eloy and informed eloy of the tragic incident which befell "ala#i. atin, along with eloy, went bac# to the store. Inside, they saw the lifeless body of "ala#i in a pool of blood lying prostrate at the floor. eloy readily noticed that the store's drawer was opened and ransac#ed and the wallet of "ala#i was missing from his poc#et
TC: /onvicted accused for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
!ne of the contentions of accused "alimit in this appeal is that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of )ondon and atin. 0e uestions the credibility of the 1 witnesses because they only revealed that they have #nowledge of the crime and identified the accused as the perpetrator, months after the incident. 2ate of the crime3 April 4, 4554
6itnesses pointed at accused3 7eptember 48, 4554
ISSUE:
6!9 the testimonies of the witnesses may be appreciated by the court: ;&7
HELD:
Accused haphaardly concluded that )ondon and atin implicated the appellant to this gruesome crime only on 7eptember 48, 4554. The aforementioned date however, was merely the date when )ondon and atin executed their respective affidavits, narrating that they saw the appellant on the night of April 4, 4554 carrying a bolo stained with blood and rushing out of "ala#i's store.
As to his claim of delay, suffice it to state that extant from the records are ample testimonial evidence negating his assertion, to wit3 4. After having discovered the commission of the crime, )ondon and atin immediately loo#ed for &utiuio eloy, "ala#i's brother-in-law, and informed him that appellant was the only person they saw running away from the crime scene< 1. eloy and atin reported the crime with the /A(=> detachment in their barangay where atin declared that it was appellant who robbed "ala#i on that fateful night< and ?. atin again made a similar statement later at the 7ilago @olice 7tation.
&ven assuming arguendo that )ondon and atin identified the appellant only on 7eptember 4, 4554, or after the lapse of five months from commission of the crime, this fact alone does not render their testimony less credible.
The non-disclosure by the witness to the police officers of appellant's identity immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human experience. In fact the natural
reticence of most people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate neighbors, as in this case, is of judicial notice.
At any rate, the consistent teaching of our jurisprudence is that the findings of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses are given weight and the highest degree of respect by the appellate court. This is the established rule of evidence, as the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is a function best performed by the trial court which can weigh said testimony in the light of the witness demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial. And although the rule admits of certain exceptions, namely3 $4% when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or $1% when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence, we found none in this case.
Additional info:
The non-presentation by the prosecution of the police blotter which could prove if accused was indeed implicated right away by atin to the crime was not necessary for the prosecution to present as evidence. &ntries in the police blotter are merely corroborative evidence of the uncontroverted testimony of atin that he identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime before the 7ilago police. As such, its presentation as evidence is not indispensable. esides, if appellant believed that he was not identified therein, then he should have secured a copy thereof from the 7ilago @olice 7tation and utilied the same as controverting evidence to impeach atin's credibility as witness. 0aving failed to do so, appellant cannot now pass the blame on the prosecution for something which appellant himself should have done.