1/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 533

Guiyab vs. People

*
G.R. No. 152527. October 20, 2005.

JOEY GUIYAB y DANAO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Procedure; Judgments; Appeals; As a rule, appellate courts

will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the
credibility of a witness, unless there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked, or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted or misapprehended.—As a
rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in
passing upon the credibility of a witness, unless there appears in the record
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been
overlooked, or the significance of which has been misinterpreted or
misapprehended. That general rule holds true in this case.
Same; Witnesses; There is nothing in law or jurisprudence which
requires, as a condition sine qua non, that, for a positive identification of a
felon by a prosecution witness to be good, the witness must first know the
former personally.—We do not doubt Joseph’s identification of Joey
Guiyab. Even if he did not know the name of the petitioner prior to the
incident, he was able to identify him in open court. Besides, Joseph
maintained that although he did not know the name of the petitioner, he
knew him by his face. There is nothing in law or jurisprudence which
requires, as a condition sine qua non, that, for a positive identification of a
felon by a prosecution witness to be good, the witness must first know the
former personally. The witness need not have to know the name of the
accused for so long as he recognizes his face. We ruled that “knowing the
identity of an accused is different from knowing his name. Hence, the
positive identification of the malefactor should not be disregarded just
because his name was supplied to the eyewitness. The weight of the
eyewitness account is premised on the fact that the said witness saw the
accused commit the crime, and not because he knew his name.”

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

534

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686e97caa98f512d35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
1/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Guiyab vs. People

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for the People.

QUISUMBING, J.:
1
This petition for review seeks to set aside the Decision dated
September 27, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
23703, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
22, Cabagan, Isabela, in Criminal Case No. 222-1074, convicting
Joey Guiyab of Homicide, and the Resolution dated February 26,
2002 denying his motion for reconsideration.
On March 11, 1993, petitioner Joey Guiyab was charged with
Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Cabagan. The
Information reads:

“That on or about the 12th day of December, 1992, in the [M]unicipality of

Tumauini, [P]rovince of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and without any just motive,
assault, attack and stab with a bladed pointed instrument one Rafael Bacani,
inflicting upon him, a stab wound on the right anterior back wall, which
directly caused his death.
3
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

On arraignment, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded

not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 71-95. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando,

with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner, and Mariano C. Del Castillo concurring.
2 Id., at p. 101.
3 Records, p. 1.

535

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 535

Guiyab vs. People

Prosecution witness JOSEPH MADRIAGA testified that on

December 12, 1992 at about 9:00 p.m., while the victim Rafael

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686e97caa98f512d35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
1/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

Bacani and he were conversing in front of the Community Center in

Tumauini, a certain Juan Sanchez approached and kicked them. As
they posed for a fist fight, petitioner Joey Guiyab uttered “Pureban
nu ta inanna nu” (You try and you will see.) while brandishing a
knife. He recalled that he retreated and jumped over the fence. He
then picked up a stone, grabbed Juan Sanchez by the hair and struck
him in the head. It was then that petitioner chased him. Failing to
catch him, petitioner turned to Rafael who was following them.
Petitioner stabbed Rafael once on the right chest. Rafael ran a few
meters before he fell. Joseph and Rafael’s brother, Bong Matias,
brought the victim to the hospital.
DR. ERASMO A. CRUZ, the resident physician of Isabela
Integrated Provincial Health Office (otherwise known as the Isabela
Provincial Hospital), testified that at around 10:45 in the evening of
December 12, 1992, he attended to Rafael Bacani. Rafael had a 1.5
centimeter stab wound located on the fourth interpostal state (middle
part of the chest above the nipple). The victim died, according to the
medical certificate, of cardiorespiratory arrest, the antecedent cause
of which is hypovolemic shock and the underlying cause is the stab
wound at the anterior chest. He died at about 6:25 a.m. the next day.
VISITACION MATIAS VDA. DE BACANI, the victim’s
mother, testified that she spent P10,000 for the medical expenses,
P18,000 for the coffin and P30,000 for the other funeral expenses.
For his part, petitioner raised the defense of alibi. JOEY
GUIYAB testified that he was not at Tumauini Cultural and Sports
Center at the time the incident happened. He averred that he was
farming until 5:00 p.m. at Sitio Bayabo, Camasi, and slept at around
9:00 p.m. in their house at Sitio Bayabo. His testimony was
corroborated by Domingo Gumaru, and petitioner’s parents, Silvino
and Vicenta Guiyab.

536

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Guiyab vs. People

DOMINGO GUMARU, petitioner’s neighbor, testified that he saw

the petitioner at Sitio Bayabo at 6:00 p.m. on December 12, 1992
and again at 8:00 a.m. of December 13, 1992. He also testified that
to go to the Centro (the town center of Tumauini) from Camasi, one
has to go to Cumabao and take a jeep there to the Centro. In 1992,
there were only three passenger vehicles plying Cumabao to Centro
and the last trip was at around 4:00 p.m.
As rebuttal, the prosecution presented SPO4 ROMEO
TUMOLVA who swore that he personally knows the petitioner as he
is a “compadre” of the petitioner’s parents. He testified seeing the
petitioner along the fenced area of the Community Center at the
night of the incident.
4
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686e97caa98f512d35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
1/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473
4
On July 7, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment, the decretal
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment finding the accused

Joey Guiyab GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide as
defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and
hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor
medium to reclusion temporal minimum or from eight (8) years and one (1)
day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, to pay the Heirs of Rafael
Bacani P50,000.00 as death indemnity, plus P30,000.00 for actual damages
and P18,000.00 for funeral expenses, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency. Costs de officio.
5
SO ORDERED.”

The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
affirmed the trial court’s decision and denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
Petitioner now comes before us raising the following issues:

_______________

4 Rollo, pp. 25-31.

5 Id., at p. 31.

537

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 537

Guiyab vs. People

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER WAS PROVEN

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO CONVICT HIM OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED AS THE

6
ASSAILANT WAS FULLY ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION.

The core issue of the present case is whether the guilt of the
petitioner was established beyond reasonable doubt. We must
likewise inquire as to whether the petitioner was adequately
identified.
Petitioner claims that the real identity of the assailant was not
fully established by the prosecution since the lone eyewitness
learned the name of the petitioner only after it was fed to him by
Police Officer Armando Lugo. Petitioner contends that the
identification of the petitioner was tainted with conjecture and
speculation.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686e97caa98f512d35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
1/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

The Solicitor General counters that Joseph Madriaga witnessed

the whole incident and positively identified the petitioner. This is
sufficient to convict petitioner.
We have carefully examined the records and find nothing in them
that supports petitioner’s claim that his identification was tainted
with conjectures and speculation. Our review of the transcript shows
that Joseph Madriaga testified in a categorical and straightforward
manner on the events leading to the death of Rafael Bacani. We
quote:

Q: Do you know Joey Guiyab?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Tell the Court why you know him?
A: I know him to be a resident of San Vicente and I often see his
face.

_______________

6 Id., at p. 14.

538

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Guiyab vs. People

Q: If Joey Guiyab is in Court, could you point him?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Please point to him.
Court Interpreter:
  Witness pointing to a person who when asked gave his name as
Joey Guiyab.
  ...
Q: After Juan Sanchez hit you with (sic) Rafael Bacani with one
single kick, what did you do?
A: Because we were surprised by the kick of Juan Sanchez we
acted by preparing our fists to fight back but this Joey Guiyab
took his knife and said in the Ibanag dialect “Pureban nu ta
inanna nu” which means you try and you will see.
Q: After Joey Guiyab brought out a knife and said to you, you try
and you will see, what happened next?
A: I moved back and jumped over the fence.
Q: Will you please tell the Honorable Court why you jumped over
the fence?

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686e97caa98f512d35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
1/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

A: Because Joey Guiyab is trying to attack me with his balisong.

Q: While (sic) you jumped over the fence what happened next?
A: After jumping over the fence, I picked up a stone and when I
saw Juan Sanchez I hit him with a stone.
Q: When you went over that fence, where was Rafael Bacani?
A: He ran inside the premises.
Q: After you hit Juan Sanchez with a stone what happened next?
A: Then Joey Guiyab chased me.
Q: Did he overtake you when he chased you?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, when he was not able to overtake you, what did he do?

539

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 539

Guiyab vs. People

A: Because he was not able to chase me he was able to get hold of

Rafael Bacani and that was the time he stabbed him.
Q: When Joey Guiyab stabbed Rafael Bacani was Rafael Bacani
hit?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What part of his body?
A: Here, sir.
Court Interpreter:
  Witness pointing to a portion of his right chest near the nipple.
  ...
Q: When Rafael Bacani was hit and stabbed with a knife, how far
were you?
A: Five (5) meters.
  ...
Q: You saw the accused stabbed (sic) Rafael Bacani, is it not?
7
A: Yes, sir.

As a rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of the
trial court in passing upon the credibility of a witness, unless there
appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence which has been overlooked, or the significance of which
8
has been misinterpreted or misapprehended. That general rule holds
true in this case.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686e97caa98f512d35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
1/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

We do not doubt Joseph’s identification of Joey Guiyab. Even if

he did not know the name of the petitioner prior to the incident, he
was able to identify him in open court. Besides, Joseph maintained
that although he did not know the name of the petitioner, he knew
9
him by his face. There is nothing in law or jurisprudence which
requires, as a condition sine qua

_______________

7 TSN, 11 May 1993, pp. 15, 19-23 (Joseph Madriaga).

8 People v. Federico, G.R. No. 146956, 25 July 2003, 407 SCRA 290, 296.
9 Supra, note 7 at pp. 40-42.

540

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Guiyab vs. People

non, that, for a positive identification of a felon by a prosecution

witness to be good, the witness must first know the former
10
personally. The witness need not have to know the name of the
11
accused for so long as he recognizes his face. We ruled that
“knowing the identity of an accused is different from knowing his
name. Hence, the positive identification of the malefactor should not
be disregarded just because his name was supplied to the
eyewitness. The weight of the eyewitness account is premised on the
fact that the said witness saw the accused commit the crime, and not
12
because he knew his name.”
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
September 27, 2001 and the Resolution dated February 26, 2002 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23703, which sustained
the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, finding petitioner JOEY
GUIYAB guilty of Homicide and sentencing him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of prision mayor medium to reclusion
temporal minimum or from eight (8) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, and to PAY the heirs of
Rafael Bacani P50,000.00 as death indemnity, plus P30,000.00 for
actual damages and P18,000.00 for funeral expenses, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, are AFFIRMED.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and

Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686e97caa98f512d35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
1/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473
10 People v. Barreta, G.R. No. 120367, 16 October 2000, 343 SCRA 199, 208.
11 People v. Vaynaco, G.R. No. 126286, 22 March 1999, 305 SCRA 93, 100.
12 People v. Agsunod, Jr., G.R. No. 118331, 3 May 1991, 306 SCRA 612, 622.

541

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 541

Heavylift Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Notes.—Factual findings and conclusions of trial courts are

entitled to great weight and are not disturbed on appeal. (People vs.
Daquipil, 240 SCRA 314 [1995])
An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and
it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct any error, as
may be found in the appealed judgment, whether assigned as an
error or not. (People vs. Balacano, 336 SCRA 615 [2000])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686e97caa98f512d35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8