People VS.

Cerbito 324 SCRA 304 (2000)

(Criminal)

Facts:

On the 3rd of September highway robbery was committed by 4 men, Daniel Cerbito, Jimboy Morales,
Vicente Acedera, and a 4th assailant that could not be identified.

The robbers did not know that a police officer, Pat. Ponce, was one of the passengers. The police
officer tried to intervene then shots were fired ending with one of the robbers shot (Vicente) in the
stomach and the police officer killed. The watch of Amor Magsakay was taken along with other
personal belongings and cash.

The three men were later identified by 2 witnesses in open court.

The accused’s alibi was that they were in different places while the robbery was taking place to which
the trial court held that the evidence presented by the accused was not sufficient to refute the
evidence presented by the prosecution. They were sentenced to reclusion Perpetua and an award for
damages as well as an award for damages to Amor Magsakay for the value of his watch as private
complainant

The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court and the SolGen seeks affirmance of the conviction
but recommends modification of penalty.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court can take judicial notice of the value of the watch as stated by the
witness

Court’s Ruling:

(On Judicial Notice)

“We have ruled that an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can
only take judicial notice of the value of goods which are matters of public knowledge or are capable
of unquestionable demonstration. The value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge nor is it
capable of unquestionable demonstration and in the absence of receipts or any other competent
evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution witness, we cannot award the
reparation for the Seiko watch”

(On the Alibi)

We agree with the trial court’s rejection of the defense of alibi for the reason that said defense
cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the two eyewitnesses presented by the
prosecution. Confronted with contradictory declarations and statements, the trial court cannot be
faulted for giving greater weight to the positive testimonies of the witnesses who have not been
shown to have any motive to falsely implicate the accused-appellants, and whose credibility has not
been placed in doubt. Alibi has generally been regarded with disfavor by the court because it is easily
fabricated 20 and we have no reason to deviate from this rule.