ORLANDO PRIMERO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

Before the then Court of First Instance of Tarlac,
Orlando Primero was charged with the crimes of Acts
of Lasciviousness and Illegal
Possession of Deadly Weapon.

The complaint for Acts of Lasciviousness reads:

“That on or about 5:30 P.M., November 12, 1975 in the municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, the
abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, while armed with a deadly weapon (bayonet) and by
means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs committed lascivious acts
upon the person of the undersigned complainant at Brgy.
Pindangan 2nd, Camiling, Tarlac by then and there
embracing, touching and fondling the breast and private parts of the
undersigned against the complainants’ will.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

“Camiling Tarlac.”
(Decision, pp. 28?29, Rollo)

While the Provincial Fiscal filed an Information for Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon, to
wit:

“That on or about November 12, 1975, at about 5:30 in the
afternoon, at Barangay Pindangan
2nd, in the Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said Orlando Primero did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously carry outside of his residence
a deadly weapon, to wit:  a bayonet, 19 –
1/2″ long, which was not
then being used as a necessary
tool or implement to earn a living or being used in connection therewith, but
was used in the commission of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness for which he
was charged in Crim. Case No. 1184 of this Honorable
Court.

“Contrary to Law.

“Tarlac, Tarlac,
February 19, 1976.”
(p. 29, Rollo)

The aforementioned offenses were jointly tried for having been
committed on the same occasion.

The evidence for the prosecution, as found by the respondent
appellate Court is as follows:

“During the time material to this case Angelita
Maycong was about 24 years old, single and a resident
of Pindangan II,
Camiling, Tarlac (p.
16, tsn., August 5, 1976).

“On or about November
12, 1975, on their way home from Tarlac
where they joined a parade (p. 30, tsn., August 30,
1976), Angelita Maycong and
one Elena Garcia saw Orlando Primero emerge suddenly
from the talahib along their path, brandishing a
bayonet at them (p. 17, tsn., August 5, 1976).  Elena Garcia ran away (p. 6, tsn., August 30, 1976). 
Angelita Maycong
descended on the ‘pilapil‘ to her left side and also
tried to run away (p. 18, tsn., August 5, 1976).  Unfortunately, Angelita
stumbled, as a result of which, Orlando
grabbed her and pinned her down
on the ground (Ibid).  He held her neck
with his right hand and held her breasts with the left hand and kissed her
right cheek (pp. 19, 20, tsn., August 5, 1976).  Fighting back, she kicked Orlando
near his organ and struck him with left hand (p. 20, Ibid.; p. 27, tsn., August 5, 1976). 
In the struggle, Angelita was able to get the
bayonet (p. 2, Ibid).

“In the meantime, Elena Garcia shouted for help (p. 20, tsn., August 5, 1976). 
Angelita also
shouted for help (p. 20, Ibid).

“Upon seeing the bayonet in the possession of Angelita, Orlando Primero ran
away (p. 23, tsn., August 5, 1976).  Not long after, the father of Angelita Maycong, who was then
tending his farm from where he heard the shouts for help, arrived (Ibid).  Having learned of the attempt made on the
honor of her daughter, father and daughter reported the matter to the Barrio Captain
(Ibid).  The bayonet was surrendered to
the police force of Camiling, Tarlac.”
(pp. 3-5, Solicitor’s Brief) (Decision, p. 10, Rollo).

The defendant, in turn, claims that the filing of these two (2) criminal
accusations was motivated by revenge.  He
testified that he and the complainant were sweethearts who were engaged to get
married.  He lived in the house of the
complainant for three (3) months where he was practically treated by the father
of the complainant, Florentino Maycong,
as a son-in-law helping in the farm work and in the daily chores in the
house.  However, the planned marriage did
not take place because the complainant’s family wanted an ostentations ceremony
which he (defendant) could not afford. 
As an alternative, defendant suggested to complainant that they elope
but the latter refused.  Subsequently,
the defendant left the complainant and married another woman, a decision which
was allegedly resented by the complainant.

Furthermore, defendant raises the defense of alibi.  It is argued that at the time the incident
was allegedly committed, he was in Paniqui, Tarlac harvesting palay with some other farm laborers.  He maintained that he worked there from 6 o’clock in the morning to past 6 o’clock in the evening of November 12, 1975.  The foregoing testimony of the defendant was
corroborated by Cipriano Sudaria
and Teodoro Cayabyab.

After trial, the lower court convicted the defendant of the two
(2) offenses charged in the two (2) separate informations
and sentenced him as follows:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Orlando Primero
guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 1184
of the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness punishable under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby
sentenced to a term of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision
correctional, medium period, and in Crim. Case No. 1195 on the charge of
Illegal Possession of a Deadly Weapon, punishable under PD 9, he is further
sentenced to a prison term of TEN (10) YEARS which is the maximum term imposed
by the law, with costs.

“The bayonet, Exh.
A, is ordered confiscated and once this decision becomes final, the same shall
be forwarded to the 184th PC Company, Paniqui, Tarlac for disposition
according to law.” (p. 12, Rollo)

On appeal, the respondent Court rendered a decision,* the dispositive portion
of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, affirming the judgment of conviction in both offenses but modifying the penalty imposed by
the lower court, We hereby sentence the defendant to
the following:

“1.     As regards to the
accusation of acts of lasciviousness the defendant is hereby sentenced to a
penalty of Six (6) Months of Arresto Mayor to Four
(4) Years of Prision Correccional;
and

“2.     As regards the
violation of Presidential Decree No. 9 the defendant is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of Five (5) Years as minimum to Ten (10) Years as
maximum.  The bayonet, Exhibit A is
ordered confiscated in favor of the government.” (pp. 15-16, Rollo)

Hence, this petition raising the following issues:

I

The respondent Court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses.

II

The respondent Court failed to pass upon the contention that
bayonet is not one of the weapons the carrying of which outside one’s residence
is punished under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 9.

III

The respondent Court erred in its non­-consideration of the defense
of alibi interposed by the defendant.

After
a careful perusal of the entire record of this case, We
find no cogent reason to disturb
the findings of the respondent Court.

With regard to the issue
of credibility, We cannot acquiesce with the argument
raised by the petitioner that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
being close relatives (father and niece) of the complainant, should not be
given weight and should be considered biased and self-serving.  Be it remembered that mere relations cannot militate against the credibility
of a witness.  Neither could it distort the testimony due from such witnesses. 
In point is the ruling in the case of People v. Libed reported in 14 SCRA 410:

“The fact alone of relationship to the victim does not destroy
a witness’ credibility.  It is not to be
lightly supposed that the relatives of the deceased would callously violate
their conscience xxx by blaming it on persons whom they know to be innocent
thereof.”

In this regard, it is
relevant to restate herein that the trial
court, which had the opportunity of observing the demeanor and deportment of
the witnesses, found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to have the
hallmarks of truth and credibility. 
Thus, the trial court pertinently observed:

“The Court is inclined to believe the claim of the
complainant.  Angelita
Maycong, her father Florentino
Maycong, and her companion Elena Garcia, appear to be
credible witnesses.  They impressed the
Court as being innocent farm folks, and
while appearance may be deceiving, their story is not incredible and was
entirely believable.  Being an unmarried woman
and in the prime of her maindenhood (she was 25 years
of age when she testified on August 5,
1976), what reason would Angelita have
for unnecessarily exposing herself if indeed the story of the accused violating
her honor was not true.  Her story was
corroborated in material aspects by the two other witnesses, her companion
Elena Garcia and her father Florentino Maycong.” (Decision, p. 12, Rollo)

Accordingly, it need not be emphasized that the trial court’s
finding that the testimonies of the witnesses were reliable, being supported by
evidence of record, should be given credence. 
Thus, on matters of credibility the findings of the trial court are
accorded the highest respect (People v. Cabanit, 139
SCRA 94; People v. Jones, 137 SCRA 166; People v. Canamo,
138 SCRA 141; People v. Pasco, Jr., 137 SCRA, Guita
v. CA, 139 SCRA 576).

Anent the second issue, We regret to say
that the same is bereft of merit.  It is
worth noting that the dispositive portion of the
respondent Court’s decision makes mention of violation by the petitioner of
P.D. No. 9 for which he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of five (5)
years as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and wherein the bayonet was
ordered confiscated in favor of the government. 
It goes without saying that the Court of Appeals would not have
sustained the trial court’s finding of petitioner’s guilt as to the charge of
illegal possession of deadly weapon were it not convinced that a bayonet is a
“bladed, pointed or blunt weapon” decreed unlawful under P.D. No. 9.

It can not be disputed that, ordinarily, the enumeration of
specified matters in a statute is construed as an exclusion of matters not
enumerated unless a different intention appears.  However, the maxim expressio
unius est
eclusio alterius
is only an auxiliary rule of statutory construction.  It is not of universal application – neither
is it conclusive.  It should be applied
only as a means of discovering legislative intent which is not otherwise
manifest and should not be permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of
the legislature (Statutory Construction, Martin, sixth edition, 1984, pp.
71-72).  Where a statute appears on its
face to limit the operation of its provisions to particular persons or things
by enumerating them, but no reason exists why other xxx things not so
enumerated should not have been included, and manifest injustice will follow by
not so including them, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius
should not be invoked (Ibid, p. 79). 
Applying the same in the instant case, it cannot be convincingly argued
that a bayonet is not a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon, possession of which
outside of one’s residence is decreed by P.D. No. 9 to be illegal.  True enough, if the carrying outside one’s
residence of such weapons as fan knife, “balisong”
or club, which are less deadly than the bayonet, are prohibited under the law,
there is no logical reason why the bayonet should be exempted from the
prohibition.

Finally, as regards the defense of alibi, not only is it a weak
defense but also it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the
accused and by credible prosecution witnesses (People. v. Obenque,
147 SCRA 448; People v. Pacada, Jr., 142 SCRA 427,
People v. Canturia, 139 SCRA 280).  Moreover, defendant failed to prove that it
was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the incident.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from
is AFFIRMED in toto.  Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., (Chairman), on leave.

* Penned by Justice Vicente G. Ericta concurred in by Justices Conrado
M. Vasquez and Jose B. Jimenez.