ALIBI; FRAME-UP; SELF-DEFENSE

ANTONIO LEJANO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 176389
14 DECEMBER 2010

ABAD, J.:
FACTS:
On 30 June 1991, Estellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were
brutally slain at their home in Paranaque City. Four years later in 1995, the NBI announced that
it had solved the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica Alfaro, one of its informers, who
claimed that she had witnessed the crime. She pointed to Hubert Webb, Antonio Lejano,
Artemio Ventura, Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel Rodriguez and
Joy Filart as the culprits. She also tagged police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory after the
fact. Alfaro had been working as an asset to the NBI by leading the agency to criminals. Some
of the said criminals had been so high-profile, that Alfaro had become the “darling” of the NBI
because of her contribution to its success. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that
Alfaro’s direct and spontaneous narration of events unshaken by gruesome cross-examination
should be given a great weight in the decision of the case.
In Alfaro’s story, she stated that after she and the accused got high of shabu, she was
asked to see Carmela at their residence. After Webb was informed that Carmela had a male
companion with her, Webb became piqued and thereafter consumed more drugs and plotted the
gang rape on Carmela. Webb, on the other hand, denied all the accusations against him with the
alibi that during the whole time that the crime had taken place, he was staying in the United
States. He had apparently left for the US on 09 March 1991 and only returned on 27 October
1992. As documentary evidence, he presented photocopies of his passport with four stamps
recording his entry and exit from both the Philippines and the US, Flight’s Passenger Manifest
employment documents in the US during his stay there and US-INS computer generated
certification authenticated by the Philippine DFA. Aside from these documentary alibis, he also
gave a thorough recount of his activities in the US
ISSUE:
Whether or not Webb’s documented alibi of his U.S. travel should be given more
credence by the Court than the positive identification by Alfaro.
RULING:
For a positive identification to be acceptable, it must meet at least two criteria:
1. The positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness; and
2. The witness’ story of what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently
contrived.

The Supreme Court found that Alfaro and her testimony failed to meet the above criteria.
She did not show up at the NBI as a spontaneous witness bothered by her conscience. She had
 ALIBI; FRAME-UP; SELF-DEFENSE

been hanging around the agency for sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing up with
criminals and squealing on them. And although her testimony included details, Alfaro had prior
access to the details that the investigators knew of the case. She took advantage of her
familiarity with these details to include in her testimony the clearly incompatible acts of Webb
hurling a stone at the front door glass frames, for example, just so she can accommodate the
crime scene feature.
To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence that:
1. He was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and
2. That it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.
The Supreme Court gave very high credence to the compounded documentary alibi
presented by Webb. This alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro’s testimony not only with respect to
him, but also with respect to the other accused. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that
Webb was in the US when the crime took place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold altogether.
Webb’s participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s story.
 ALIBI; FRAME-UP; SELF-DEFENSE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ORLANDO UBIA y AGGALUT

G.R. No. 176349
July 10, 2007

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
FACTS:
 
in the morning of October 9, 2000 when the ORLANDO UBIA went to the
Tabang Elementary School in Tabang, Sto. Nio, Cagayan (where AAA was a student) to
inform her that her grandfather (lolo) was in a hospital and needed her there. AAA went
with the ORLANDO UBIA but was told while at Tuguegarao that her lolo was in a
different hospital. The ORLANDO UBIA then brought her to Allacapan, Cagayan in a
house where the accused stayed when they were still young.
 
In a room at that house, the ORLANDO UBIA removed AAAs pants and
thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina while AAA was lying down. AAA resisted
when she was made to lie down and cried as the ORLANDO UBIA removed her
pants. The ORLANDO UBIA sexually abused [her] five (5) times in the seven (7) days
they stayed in Allacapan.
 
From Allacapan, the ORLANDO UBIA brought AAA in the afternoon of October
16, 2000 to her grandfather’s house located in a rice field in Campo, Sto. Nio, Cagayan.
He molested her twice at that location that same afternoon. Again, AAA cried as the
ORLANDO UBIA removed her shorts and panty.
 
After three (3) days, AAAs grandfather brought her home to San Manuel. With
the ORLANDO UBIA’s warning not to tell anyone what transpired between them, AAA
did not mention a word regarding the incident to either her grandfather at Sto. Nio, or to
[her] father upon her arrival at home at San Manuel. It was only on the following day that
she told her father about her ordeal. AAAs father reported the matter to the police the
next day.
 
After initial police investigation, AAA was brought to the Cagayan Valley
Medical Center where Dr. Jeliza Alcantara medically examined her. The examination
disclosed several hymenal lacerations in her genitalia, indicating that she was no longer a
virgin. 
 
The ORLANDO UBIA denied that he raped AAA but admitted that his father-in-
law instructed him on October 9, 2000 to bring AAA home from school because he (the
father-in-law who is also AAAs grandfather) was sick. [She] was summoned because no
one else was available to look after him. After bringing [her] home, he went to his farm
to pick up his wife. The ORLANDO UBIA denied that he brought AAA to Allacapan,
Cagayan; he had no reason to go there since he didnt know anybody from that place. He
further claimed that on October 16, 2000, he was at Maguiling, Piat, Cagayan to have his
 ALIBI; FRAME-UP; SELF-DEFENSE

buffalo carabao vaccinated; he went home by 5:00 oclock in the afternoon of that same
day.
 
The ORLANDO UBIA claimed that he could not think of any reason why AAA
would accuse him of rape, and surmised that [her] father could be angry at, or at the very
least envious of, him. He narrated that AAAs father did not receive any dowry from his
father-in-law while he and his wife were given a carabao.
 
RTC rendered judgment finding that the guilt of the accused Orlando A. Ubia for the
crime of Rape.

Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not it was physically impossible for Ubia to commit the said crime of rape.

RULING:
 
No. ORLANDO UBIA s version of what transpired only generates disbelief. Denial and
alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which can not be
accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses. To be
believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; whereas for alibi to
prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another
place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. In the instant case,
it was not shown that it was physically impossible for ORLANDO UBIA to be at the scene of
the crime when it was committed. Moreover, nobody corroborated his alibi.