PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN ALEMAN Y LONGHAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Aleman versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Edwin Aleman, a criminal appeal from a conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The accused was charged with robbing and killing Ramon Jaime Birosel, a real estate broker who was stabbed repeatedly inside his parked car in Quezon City on the evening of February 10, 2003. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must carry into the examination room: first, it settles the competence of a deaf-mute to testify as a witness, and second, it restates the rule that a positive identification made in open court prevails over a failure to identify the accused during a police line-up.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 76, after trial, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, and reimbursement of the value of the stolen items. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising four grounds all aimed at discrediting the eyewitness. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in full. The accused then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, insisting on the same grounds, and the Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Facts

At about seven o'clock in the evening of February 10, 2003, Mark Almodovar, then fourteen years old, left his house to play basketball. Around nine o'clock he stopped playing, felt the need to urinate, and went to a spot near five parked cars. While there, he saw a stout man walk toward a car while talking on a cellular phone. Two men followed the stout man, and when he entered his car, they separated, one taking the driver's side and the other the opposite side.

The man at the driver's side, armed with a knife, knocked on the window and then stabbed the victim repeatedly, while his companion, armed with a gun, fired once. The two men took the victim's ring, watch, wallet, and cellular phone, then walked away. Mark followed them for about thirty minutes. He saw them bury the knife, and later saw one of them remove his bonnet and a bloodstained white shirt. Under a light bulb near the flowing water, Mark recognized the man who had stabbed the victim as the accused, Edwin Aleman. The following morning, Mark returned to the scene and reported to the police.

The autopsy showed the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock from multiple stab wounds in the thorax, with three penetrating wounds piercing the left lung and perforating the heart. The accused interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was at a billiards hall from seven to ten o'clock that evening, corroborated by his sister and by the grandmother of his billiards opponent. The defense also sought to show that Mark failed to identify the accused in two police line-ups held on February 13, 2003.

Issues

• Whether or not a deaf-mute is competent to testify as a witness.
• Whether or not the eyewitness testimony, uncorroborated by his playmates, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
• Whether or not the giving of money, clothes, and shoes to the witness before he testified destroys his credibility.
• Whether or not the failure of the witness to identify the accused during a police line-up casts doubt on his positive identification in open court.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 130, Section 20 of the Rules of Court, on the qualifications of witnesses, provides:

All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

This is the provision the Court construes in holding that a deaf-mute who can perceive and can make his perception known through a qualified interpreter is a competent witness.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the mere fact that Mark is a deaf-mute does not render him unqualified to be a witness. His sense of sight remains functional, and although he cannot hear or speak, he may communicate in writing, through signs and symbols, or, as in this case, through sketches. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus Tuangco:

A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and (3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.

The Court found that Mark understood the sanctity of an oath, comprehended the facts, and communicated through Catinguil, a licensed sign language interpreter found qualified by both lower courts. The method of examining a deaf-mute is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the lack of corroboration did not weaken the testimony. The settled rule is that the positive and credible testimony of a single witness is sufficient to secure a conviction. The testimony was in fact corroborated by physical evidence, the autopsy findings of multiple mortal stab wounds, whose evidentiary weight far outweighs any corroborative testimony the defense demanded.

On the third issue, the Court respected the unanimous finding of both lower courts that there was no improper motive impelling Mark to testify falsely, bad faith and ill motive being questions of fact.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the failure to identify the accused in a police line-up was of no moment. What the law requires is the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, and Mark positively pointed to the accused in open court. The Court also held that the killing was by reason of the robbery, making it the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Doctrine

A deaf-mute is a competent witness under Rule 130, Section 20, provided he can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath, comprehend the facts he will testify on, and communicate his ideas through a qualified interpreter. The inability to hear and speak does not disqualify; the capacity to perceive and to make that perception known is what the rule requires. The positive identification of the accused in open court is what matters, and a failure to identify him during a police line-up does not destroy that identification. The credible testimony of a single witness, corroborated by physical evidence such as autopsy findings, suffices to convict.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Edwin Aleman for robbery with homicide, with the penalties and damages sustained.

Remember This

Memorize the three-part test: a deaf-mute is competent where he understands the oath, comprehends the facts, and communicates through a qualified interpreter. Examiners use this case to test witness competence under Rule 130, Section 20, and the rule that in-court positive identification prevails over a failed police line-up identification.