G.R. No. 125808, September 3, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENE TAPALES y SUMULONG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

This is a dissenting opinion by Justice Puno in a case where the accused-appellant, Rene Tapales, was charged with rape and homicide. The majority decision acquitted Tapales. The dissent focuses on the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. Key testimonies include: (1) Ferdinand Calip, the victim’s 18-year-old brother, who testified that he saw the accused-appellant inside the tricycle his sister boarded on the morning of the crime; (2) Randy Ejara, who testified that at around 5:45 a.m., he saw a nervous-looking accused-appellant on board a tricycle’s sidecar on Lira Street; and (3) Barangay tanods Adan and Baran, who testified that the accused went to the crime scene between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m., appearing “visibly remorseful and intensely disturbed.” The trial court conducted an ocular inspection regarding the illumination on Lira Street where Ejara claimed to have seen the accused, finding the area “brightly illuminated” by a Meralco lamp post. The defense presented witnesses, including William Macalinao and Modesto Dime, to challenge the lighting conditions. The majority decision doubted the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the majority correctly discredited the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstantial evidence, thereby warranting the acquittal of the accused-appellant.

RULING

Justice Puno dissented, voting to convict the accused-appellant based on the following reasons:
1. Credibility of Ferdinand Calip: His testimony deserves full faith and credit. As the victim’s brother with no motive to falsely implicate a stranger, his identification of the accused-appellant in the tricycle is reliable. His approximation of the time (5:30 a.m.) and his initial failure to report the accused’s presence are understandable and do not render his testimony false.
2. Credibility of Randy Ejara: The ocular inspection conducted by the trial judge confirmed that Ejara’s location was well-lit by a Meralco lamp post, making his identification of the accused-appellant not improbable. The testimonies of defense witnesses Macalinao and Dime do not devalue Ejara’s account, as Macalinao referred to a different street (Yuan Street) and Dime’s knowledge was based on hearsay records.
3. Admissibility of Tanods’ Testimonies: The testimonies of barangay tanods Adan and Baran regarding the accused-appellant’s remorseful appearance at the crime scene are admissible as evidence of a party’s conduct under Rule 130, Section 26(c)(3) of the Rules of Evidence. This conduct is a relevant fact from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.
4. Significance of Accused’s Injuries: The injuries sustained by the accused-appellant constitute circumstantial evidence. Their relevance and connection to the crime are matters for the court’s determination based on the collective weight of evidence, not a presumption by the prosecution.
5. Weakness of Alibi Defense: The defense of alibi is the weakest defense. The accused-appellant failed to demonstrate it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, as the distance between his house and the location could be negotiated in approximately thirty to forty minutes.
Justice Puno concluded that the collective evidence warranted conviction.