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 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 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 destroys the defense of alibi
giving to such effect to be weak, given as the identification was made with resound and credible.