Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ alias “NANDING BEDEA” 411 SCRA 202 (2003)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ alias “NANDING BEDEA” 411 SCRA 202 (2003)

Testimonies of witnesses giving a positive identification of a person as the malefactor, categorically and consistently giving a credible account of what they witnessed shall prevail over an alibi. Ferdinand Dariagan was riding a tricycle when he decided to urinate on the roadside while waiting for the driver, moments later appellant Fernando Buenavidez who came from the barangay chapel struck Dariagan several times with a knife. Consequently, Dariagan died. There were two persons who witnessed the killing. During trial, Buenavidez invoked the defense of alibi. Buenavidez claims that it is impossible for him to be at the crime scene because at the date and time of the incident, he was tending the chickens in the farm of his employer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the Buenavidez‘s defenses of denial and alibi discordant or inconsistent with his statements in his direct testimony and thus convicted Buenavidez with the crime of murder. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Buenavidez is guilty of murder

HELD:

As for the trial court‘s discrediting appellant Fernando Buenavidez‘ alibi, it is settled that the issue of credibility is a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed the witnesses‘ deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to appellate courts. Where, as in the prosecution witnesses‘ case, they positively identified appellant Buenavidez as the malefactor and categorically and consistently gave a credible account of what they witnessed, their testimonies should indeed prevail over Buenavidez‘s alibi. Additionally, as the trial court also found, the eyewitnesses had no ill-motive to testify falsely against appellant. Patanao, who was not a resident of Barangay Dayao, Roxas City, going to said place only occasionally, has had no encounter with the victim and knew appellant only as the person taking care of the fighting cocks of one Jun-Jun Borda. Mamburan on the other hand does not know appellant personally and saw him only in the afternoons of February 6 up to 11, 1995 gathering fighting cocks ―beside the road.‖