View full case

PEOPLE v. BENIE MON Y ABARIDES

FACTS:

The case involves the conviction of the accused, Benie, for the crime of murder. According to the prosecution's version of events, the victim and a witness were having coffee when Benie arrived and shot the victim multiple times, causing his death. The accused denied the allegations and claimed that he was sleeping at his residence during the incident. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Benie guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered him to pay damages to the victim's heirs. Benie appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision. Benie then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court agrees with Benie's argument, stating that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and in this case, it did not overcome the burden of proof. The court also discusses the importance of considering the defenses of denial and alibi if found credible. The court emphasizes that in an alibi defense, the accused must prove not only that they were at another place during the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. In this case, the court finds that it was physically impossible for Benie to commit the crime due to the distance and lack of access between the places.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the defense of denial and alibi can be considered complete and legitimate defenses.

  2. Whether the accused established physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime.

  3. Whether the testimonies of the defense witnesses, specifically Ricky and Barangay Captain Valois, were credible and corroborated the accused's alibi defense.

  4. The main issue in this case is whether the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Manolo, is credible given the inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the lighting conditions during the shooting incident and his claim of not actually witnessing the poking of the gun at the victim's neck.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the defense of denial and alibi can be considered complete and legitimate defenses. The burden of proof does not shift by the mere invocation of said defenses and the presumption of innocence remains in favor of the accused.

  2. The accused established physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. The distance between the accused's whereabouts in Capiz and the place where the crime was committed in Metro Manila was significant. The accused testified that it would take one day and one night by ship to travel from Capiz to Metro Manila, and even if an airplane was used, the travel time is still long, ranging from 45 minutes to one hour.

  3. The testimonies of the defense witnesses Ricky and Barangay Captain Valois were credible and corroborated the accused's alibi defense. Ricky testified that the accused was driving his tricycle from March 30, 2010, until the time he was apprehended, and there was no instance of him taking a leave of absence. Barangay Captain Valois also testified that the accused is a resident of Pilar, Capiz from 2008 up to 2012. These testimonies were not refuted by the prosecution and were supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses.

  4. The court ruled that the testimony of the lone eyewitness is not credible due to the inconsistencies in his testimony. The contradictions on material points seriously erode the credibility of a witness. In this case, Manolo's testimony contains inconsistencies regarding the lighting conditions during the incident and his claim of not witnessing the poking of the gun at the victim's neck. These inconsistencies raise doubts on the veracity of his testimony.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The defense of denial and alibi can be considered complete and legitimate defenses.

  • In alibi, the accused must prove that he was present at another place at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

  • Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the accused's whereabouts and the place where the crime was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.

  • For alibi to prosper, it must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses.

  • Self-contradictions and inconsistencies on a material and substantial matter seriously erode the credibility of a witness.

  • For evidence to be believed, it must not only come from a credible witness, but also be credible in itself, conforming to common experience and observation of mankind. Evidence contrary to common knowledge, observation, and experience belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance.

  • Minor inconsistencies in a witness' affidavit and testimony in court do not necessarily affect credibility, but material inconsistencies that go into the execution of the crime may cast doubt on the witness' testimony.

  • Expert testimony can be used to determine the position of the assailant based on the location of gunshot wounds on the victim's body.

  • In the Philippines, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to support a judgment of conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution must produce in the mind of the court a moral certainty of the accused's guilt. When there is even a scintilla of doubt, the court must acquit.

  • The primordial duty of the prosecution is to present its side with clarity and persuasion, justifying the conviction of the accused with moral certainty. Failure to meet this test requires the court to acquit the accused, to avoid imprisoning an innocent person for the rest of their life.