Primero v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Orlando Primero was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness and Illegal Possession of a Deadly Weapon. The prosecution alleged that on November 12, 1975, Primero emerged from tall grass, brandishing a bayonet, and attacked Angelita Maycong. He allegedly pinned her down, touched her breasts, and kissed her cheek. Maycong fought back, obtained the bayonet, and shouted for help. Primero fled, and the incident was reported to authorities. Primero claimed the charges were motivated by revenge after his planned marriage to Maycong's daughter did not materialize, and he also presented an alibi, stating he was in Paniqui, Tarlac, harvesting palay. Procedural History: The offenses were jointly tried before the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. The trial court convicted Primero of both Acts of Lasciviousness and Illegal Possession of a Deadly Weapon, sentencing him to imprisonment for both offenses and ordering the confiscation of the bayonet. Primero appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the conviction for both offenses but modified the penalties imposed. Primero then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petition raises three main issues: (1) the respondent Court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, arguing they were biased due to their relationship with the complainant; (2) the respondent Court failed to address the contention that a bayonet is not a weapon covered by Presidential Decree No. 9; and (3) the respondent Court erred in not considering the defense of alibi. The petitioner seeks to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Whether the respondent Court erred in its interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 9 regarding the possession of a bayonet. Whether the respondent Court erred in its non-consideration of the defense of alibi.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto, upholding the conviction of Orlando Primero for Acts of Lasciviousness and Illegal Possession of a Deadly Weapon.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court reiterated that mere relationship to the victim does not automatically destroy a witness's credibility. The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor, found the prosecution witnesses credible and their story believable. The Court emphasized that findings of the trial court on credibility are accorded the highest respect. The testimony of Angelita Maycong was corroborated by Elena Garcia and Florentino Maycong, and the trial court found no reason for Angelita to fabricate such a story. On the interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 9: The Court found the argument that a bayonet is not covered by P.D. No. 9 to be without merit. While acknowledging the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court stated it is an auxiliary rule and not conclusive, especially when it would defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature. The Court reasoned that a bayonet is a bladed, pointed weapon, and if less deadly weapons like fan knives or clubs are prohibited, there is no logical reason to exempt a bayonet from the prohibition. The Court of Appeals' affirmation of the conviction for illegal possession indicated its conviction that a bayonet is covered by the decree. On the defense of alibi: The Court held that alibi is a weak defense, especially when contradicted by positive identification by credible witnesses. Furthermore, the accused failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the incident. The Court cited previous rulings that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness and Illegal Possession of a Deadly Weapon, holding that the credibility of witnesses, even if related to the victim, should be given weight, and that a bayonet falls under the prohibition of Presidential Decree No. 9.