People Vs Plasencia

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Plasencia
G.R. No. 90198. November 7, 1995.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO PLASENCIA y DESAMPARADO alias

‘Tonying,” ROBERTO DESCARTIN y PASICARAN alias “Ruby” and JOELITO (JULITO) DESCARTIN y
PASICARAN, accused-appellants.
Evidence; Witnesses; Judgments; Judges; Transcript of Steno-graphic Notes; The initial assessment on
the testimony of a witness is done by the trial court, and its findings still deserve due regard
notwithstanding that the presiding judge who pens the decision is not the one who personally may have
heard the testimony; Reliance on the transcript of stenographic notes should not, for that reason alone,
render the judgment subject to challenge.—The focus of this appeal is clearly one of credibility. The
initial assessment on the testimony of a witness is done by the trial court, and its findings still deserve
due regard notwithstanding that the presiding judge who pens the decision is not the one who
personally may have heard the testimony. The reliance on the transcript of stenographic notes should
not, for that reason alone, render the judgment subject to challenge. The continuity of the court and the
efficacy of its decision are not affected by the cessation from the service of the judge presiding it or by
the fact that its writer merely took over from a colleague who presided at the trial.
Same; Same; Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial court.—
The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section 16,
Rule 132, of the Rules of Court states: “Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum.—A witness
may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or
under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded;but
in such casethe writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who
may, if he chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness
may testify from such a writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is
able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence
must be received with caution.” (Italics supplied.) Allowing a witness to refer to her notes
______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
675
VOL. 249, NOVEMBER 7, 1995

675
rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the exercise of that discretion has not been
abused; the witness herself has explained that she merely wanted to be accurate on dates and like
details.
Same; Same; Nervousness and anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of those
who are called to testify for the first time—the real concern should be when they show no such
emotions.—Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca’s appearing to be jittery” on the witness stand.
Nervousness and anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of those who are
called to testify for the first time. The real concern, in fact, should be when they show no such emotions.
Same; Same; Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily adulterate the
credibility of witnesses.—Francisca did fail in immediately reporting the killing to the police authorities.
Delay or vacillation, however, in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily adulterate the
credibility of the witness. Francisca, in her case, has expressed fears for her life considering that the
assailants, being her neighbors, could easily exact retribution on her. Also, the hesitancy in reporting the
occurrence of a crime in rural areas is not unknown.
Same; Same; Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not detract from their credibility
—on the contrary, they serve to strengthen their credibility and are taken as badges of truth rather than
as indicia of falsehood even as they also erase suspicion of rehearsed testimony.—The alleged
inconsistencies in Francisca’s testimony and in her sworn statement of 18 December 1984, cover
matters of little significance. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not detract from
their credibility; on the contrary, they serve to strengthen their credibility and are taken as badges of
truth rather than as indicia of falsehood even as they also erase suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
Criminal Law; Murder; Robbery with Homicide; Murder is a crime technically lower than robbery with
homicide.—The trial court was correct when it concluded that the crime committed was murder, a crime
technically lower than robbery with homicide, not, however, because of the attendance of treachery but
of abuse of superior strength.
Same; Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength qualified the killing to murder where three assailants utilized superiority in numbers and
676
676

employed deadly weapons in assaulting an unarmed victim.—Treachery, in our view, was not
satisfactorily proven by the prosecution. Francisca Espina simply testified that appellant Plasencia
stabbed Mansueto while the latter and the appellants were in a huddle. There was nothing adduced on
whether or not the victim gave provocation, an indispensable issue in the proper appreciation of
treachery. The presence, nonetheless, of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
qualified the killing to murder. The three appellants utilized superiority in numbers and employed
deadly weapons in assaulting the unarmed Mansueto.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Br. 5.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Alex L. Monteclar for Joelito Descartin.
Cesar Gonzales for Roberto Descartin.
Gabriel T. Ingles for Antonio Plasencia.
VITUG, J.:
Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito (Julito) Descartin were accused of robbery with
homicide in an information, dated 20 December 1984, that read:
“That on or about the 29th day of November, 1984 at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, more or less,
in sitio San Juan, Barangay Patao, Municipality of Bantayan, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with
treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior number and strength and with
intent to kill, treacherously attack, assault and use personal violence upon Herminio Mansueto, thereby
inflicting upon him the following physical injuries:
“1. Stab wounds which was approximately two inches in length, parallel to the ribs and is located 1½
inches below the right nipple on the right anterior axillary line and on the fifth intercostal space. On
probing the wound was penetrating immediately up to the left paraster-
677

677
nal border approximately hitting the heart;
“2. Hacking wound 9 inches in length extending from the coracoid process of the left clavicle passing
between the left anterior and the left mid axillary line up to the left 4th intercostal space including all
muscle underlying the skin exposing the ribs.“Cause of death: Internal hemorrhage due to stab wound.
after which the body was placed inside a plastic bag and brought to an open sea by the pump boat
owned by Roberto Descartin y Pasicaran and operated by Joelito Descartin y Pasicaran and dumped to
the water by herein accused, and as a result of which said Herminio Mansueto died, herein accused, in
pursuance of their conspiracy, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent to gain, took and
carried away the personal property belonging to Herminio Mansueto, namely: one (1) Seiko 5 ‘Stop
Watch’ valued at P3,000.00; one (1) Bicycle (standard size) valued at P1,000.00; and cash in the amount
of P10,000.00, all in the total amount of FOURTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P14,000.00), Philippine
Currency, to the damage and prejudice of said oner (sic) in the said total sum.
“All contrary to law, and with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, and the generic aggravating
circumstance of known premeditation.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”1
When arraigned, all the accused entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charge; whereupon, trial
commenced.
The prosecution sought to establish, as follows:
At around ten o’clock in the morning of 29 November 1984, Herminio Mansueto, wearing a blue and
white striped t-shirt, maong pants, Seiko 5 stop watch and a pandan hat, left on his bicycle for Barangay
Patao, Bantayan, Cebu. He had with him P10,000.00 cash which he would use to purchase hogs from a
certain “Ruby.”
In Patao, Francisca Espina, also known in the locality as Pansing and whose house was just across the
street from the respective residences of the three accused, saw at the roadside Herminio Mansueto and
Roberto Descartin alias “Ruby” engaged in conversation. Pansing approached them and asked Mansueto
if he would be interested in buying two of her pigs for
____________
1 Rollo, pp. 1-2.
678
678
P1,400.00. Mansueto said “yes” and promised that he would be right back.
Mansueto and Ruby meantime proceeded to the latter’s piggery. Joelito Descartin and his brother-in-law
Rene were also seen going to the place. After some time, Pansing noticed Joelito take Mansueto’s
bicycle. Believing that Mansueto was already preparing to leave and in her desire tio catch up with him,
Pansing promptly walked towards the piggery which was around 100 meters away from her house. She
could see Mansueto leaning on the pigsty with Ruby on his right side and Antonio Plasencia alias
“Tonying” on his left; behind was Joelito.2 Midway, she was halted on her tracks; she suddenly saw
Antonio stab Mansueto. The latter staggered towards Ruby who himself then delivered another stab
blow. Mansueto fell on his back. Joelito started hitting Mansueto on the forehead while Rene held
Mansueto’s legs.3 Except for a coconut tree and some ipil-ipil trees around the area, nothing obstructed
Pansing’s line of vision. Pansing rushed back home. The image of Antonio waving the weapon and the
thought that she might herself be killed kept her from revealing to anyone what she saw.4
The following day, in Kodia, Madridejos, Cebu, where Mansueto resided, his daughter Rosalinda
reported to Francisca Tayo, the barangay captain, that her father had not returned home. Tayo
proceeded to Putian, which was in Mansueto’s itinerary, and then to Ruby’s piggery in Patao, where a
youngster, who turned out to be Ruby’s son, innocently informed her that Mansueto’s bicycle was taken
by Joelito.5
The day after, Francisca Tayo, accompanied by police officers of Madridejos, Cebu, and some relatives of
Mansueto, went back to Ruby’s place. On a railing of the pigpen, she saw blood stains. When she asked
Ruby’s father about it, he said that the stains had come from chicken blood. Going around the piggery,
she also saw blood stains on a bamboo pole, which Ruby’s father once again so identified as chicken
blood. At the back of the piggery,
______________
2 TSN, 22 January 1985, p. 19.
3 TSN, 22 January 1985, pp. 8-9.
4 Ibid., p. 22.
5 TSN, 22 January 1985, p. 32.
679
679
Francisca noticed a digging which looked like an empty grave. The digging was measured and photos
were taken. The police found a hat at the back of a hut beside the piggery, which was later recognized to
be that which belonged to Mansueto.6
In the morning of 30 November 1984, Patrolman Elpidio Desquitado of the Bantayan police went back to
the piggery. This time, the police learned from Pansing herself that Joelito took Mansueto’s bicycle.7
Joelito was invited to the police headquarters to shed light on the case. Later, Joelito, waiving his right
to counsel, executed a “confession.”8
Joelito narrated that, upon Ruby’s instruction, he brought the bicycle to the piggery. Unexpectedly, he
said, Tonying Plasencia stabbed Mansueto. Stunned, Joelito tried to run away but Tonying stopped him.
Tonying then dragged the victim to a nearby house. Threatened by Tonying, Joelito agreed to later
return to where the victim’s body was dragged. At around eleven o’clock that evening, Tonying and
Joelito placed the body in a sack. Tonying asked Ruby to allow the use of the latter’s pumpboat to ferry
the body. Tonying paddled the pumpboat to the island of Po-Po’o where he picked up some pieces of
stones. Then, again paddling the pumpboat farther away from the island, he ordered Joelito to start the
engine of the boat. They headed for the islet of Gilotongan (Hilotongan). On the way, Tonying filled the
sack with stones and, using a rope, tied to it the body of the victim. Tonying then unloaded their cargo
into the sea.
Guided by Joelito, members of the Bantayan police force headed for the islet of Hilotongan on two
pumpboats9 in the area pinpointed to be the place where the body was dumped. On the second day of
the search, the group was informed that the body had already surfaced near the vicinity of the search
and delivered to the municipal building.10
The municipal health officer of Bantayan, Dr. Oscar Quirante, examined the body and concluded that the
victim died of internal
________________
6 Ibid., pp. 35-36.
7 TSN, 29 January 1985, pp. 5 & 37-38.
8 Exh. J.
9 TSN, 29 January 1985, pp. 27-28.

10 Ibid., pp. 9-10.
680
680
hemorrhage due to stab wounds.11 The bloated body was in a late stage of decomposition and its skin
had sloughed off.12 He found the victim’s face to be “beyond recognition.” There was “some rope signs
in the body particularly in the waistline and in the knees.”13
The main defense interposed is one of alibi. Antonio stated that on the whole day of 29 November 1984,
he was out at sea fishing with his son. Joelito, on his part, asserted that he was in Barrio Baod, about an
hour’s walk from his residence, at the house of his fiancee. He returned to his house, he said, only the
day after. Roberto (“Ruby”), Joelito’s uncle, testified that on that fateful day, he was in Samoco Purok 2,
Iligan City, and then left for Cebu on 06 December 1984 only after receiving a telegraph that Joelito was
implicated in the crime.
The Regional Trial Court14 did not give credence to the defense of alibi. It convicted the three accused
of murder (punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code), instead of robbery with homicide,
explaining that the term “homicide” was used in the information in its generic sense.15 Finding
conspiracy, the trial court ruled that the killing was qualified by both treachery and abuse of superior
strength with the latter, however, being absorbed by the former. No other aggravating or mitigating
circumstances being attendant in the commission of the crime, the trial court said, the penalty that
could be imposed upon each of the accused was reclusion perpetua with a joint and several civil liability
for indemnification to the heirs of Herminio Mansueto in the amount of P30,000.00.
The instant appeal was interposed by the three convicted appellants.
Appellant Antonio Plasencia attacks the credibility of the prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Francisca
Espina, alleging that
______________
11 Exh. K.
12 The phrase used in the transcripts is “slumped off’ (TSN, 29 April 1985, p. 33).
13 Ibid., p. 23.
14 Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 5, presided over by Judge Celso M. Gimenez.
15 Decision, p. 28.
681
681
she is a perjured witness who has an axe to grind against him because his dog had once bitten
Franciscans child.16 He bewails the fact that it has taken Francisca until 29 December 1984 to reveal
what she supposedly has seen to the police authorities. Contending that treachery has not been duly
proven as “no wound was inflicted at the back and as a matter of fact only one wound was fatal,”17
appellant argues that even if conspiracy were to be considered to have attended the commission of the
crime, he could be held liable with the others, if at all, only for homicide.
Appellant Roberto Descartin, likewise challenging Francisca Espina’s credibility because of her alleged
inconsistencies, faults the trial court for allowing the witness to glance at the notes written on her palm
while testifying. He also argues that his alibi,being corroborated, should have been given weight.
Appellant Joelito Descartin, in assailing the credibility of Francisca, has noted her “jittery actuation”
while giving her testimony. He also questions the findings of the ponente for not being the presiding
judge during the examination of Francisca on the witness stand.
The focus of this appeal is clearly one of credibility. The initial assessment on the testimony of a witness
is done by the trial court, and its findings still deserve due regard notwithstanding that the presiding
judge who pens the decision is not the one who personally may have heard the testimony.18 The
reliance on the transcript of stenographic notes should not, for that reason alone, render the judgment
subject to challenge.19 The continuity of the court and the efficacy of its decision are not affected by the
cessation from the service of the judge presiding it20 or by the fact that its writer merely took over from
a colleague who presided at the trial.21
_______________
16 Exh. 2-Plasencia.
17 Appellant Plasencia’s Brief, p. 5.
18 People v. Peralta, 237 SCRA 218, 220; People v. Fuertes, 229 SCRA 289.
19 People v. Jaymalin, 214 SCRA 685; People v. De Paz, 212 SCRA 56; People v. Juanga, 189 SCRA 226;
People v. Abaya, 185 SCRA 419; People v. Escalante, 131 SCRA 237.
20 Ayco v. Fernandez, 195 SCRA 328.
21 People v. Sadiangabay, 220 SCRA 551, 552.
682
682
It is asserted that the testimony of Francisca Espina should not be given worth since, while testifying,
she would at times be seen reading some notes written on her left palm. Thus—
“Q
May I see your left hand, may I see what is written there?
“A
Witness showing to the court her left palm and the following words have been written in her palm in
ball pen handwritten words and number of the pumpboat No. 56 and there is another word ‘petsa’ and
there are words which cannot be deciphered and all found in the palm of the left hand.
“ATTY. MONTECLAR:
That is all.
“ATTY. GONZALES: RE-CROSS
“Q
Mrs. witness, you cannot deny of what these physical evidences or writings on the palm of your left
hand. I want you to be honest, the law will not allow you to lie, you are subject to punishment and
penalty. My question is, who wrote this on the palm of your left hand?
“A
I was the one who wrote this.
“Q
Why did you write that down?
“A
I was the one who wrote this.
“Q
Why, what was your purpose of writing that in your palm?
“A
I wrote this in my palm because I wanted to be sure of what time the incident happened, was the same
as that I wrote in my palm.
“Q
And who furnished you the data in which you wrote in the palm of your hand?
“A
I was the one who made that.
“ATTY. GONZALES:
“Q
You don’t understand my question. You wrote that writing but where did you get that data?
“A
This is just of what I know.
“Q
Since you claim to have all this knowledge of your mind, why did you find it necessary to write that in
the palm of your hand and I notice during the trial that you used to look in your palm, why, is that
necessary in your believe to testify here to what you knew about the incident.
“A
Because of the fact that I have a headache.
“Q
When did this headache occur?
“A
After I left my house because my sick child.

“Q
Now, knowing that you have a headache, did you not bring this to the attention of the Fiscal?
“A
No, I did not tell the Fiscal.
683
683
“Q
Do you know of your own that doing this is unfair and is not allowable while testifying in open court, do
you know that that is illegal act?
“A
No, I did not know.
“Q
And you did all of this claiming that you do not know about the incident for the purpose of giving her
testimony against the accused?
“A
Yes, sir.”22
The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section 16,
Rule 132, of the Rules of Court states:
“Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum.—A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the
fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory
and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case the writing or record
must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross-examine
the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing or
record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or
record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution.”
(Italics supplied.)
Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial court.23 In this case,
the exercise of that discretion has not been abused; the witness herself has explained that she merely
wanted to be accurate on dates and like details.
Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca’s appearing to be “jittery” on the witness stand. Nervousness
and anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of those who are called to testify for
the first time. The real concern, in fact, should be when they show no such emotions.
Francisca did fail in immediately reporting the killing to the police authorities. Delay or vacillation,
however, in making a
_______________
22 TSN, 22 January 1985, pp. 23-24.
23 FRANCISCO, THE REVISED RULES OF COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. VII, Part II, 1991 ed., p. 312.
684
684
ity of the witness.24 Francisca, in her case, has expressed fears for her life considering that the
assailants, being her neighbors, could easily exact retribution on her.25 Also, the hesitancy in reporting
the occurrence of a crime in rural areas is not unknown.26
Franciscans inability to respond to the summons for another appearance in court for further questioning
was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Francisca at the time just had a miscarriage and was
found to be too weak to travel. The recall of the witness was, after all, at the sound discretion of the trial
court.27
The claim of appellant Roberto Descartin that Francisca and her husband, a tuba-gatherer, owed him
P300.00, and the assertion made by appellant Antonio Plasencia on the dog-biting story involving
Francisca’s son truly were too petty to consider. It would be absurd to think that Francisca, for such
trivial reasons was actually impelled to falsely implicate appellants for so grave an offense as murder.
Appellants questioned Francisca’s ability to recognize them from a distance. Francisca knew appellants
well; they all were her neighbors while Antonio Plasencia himself was her cousin.28 The crime occurred
at around three o’clock in the afternoon only about fifty (50) meters away from her. With an
unobstructed view, Francisca’s positive identification of the culprits should be a foregone matter.29
The alleged inconsistencies in Francisca’s testimony and in her sworn statement of 18 December 1984,
cover matters of little significance. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not detract
from their credibility;30 on the contrary,
_______________
24 People v. Errojo, 229 SCRA 49, 57.
25 People v. Peran, 215 SCRA 152.
26 People v. Villaruel, 238 SCRA 408; People v. Carizo, 233 SCRA 687.
27 People vs. Rodriguez, 193 SCRA 231.
28 TSN, 22 January 1985, p. 4.
29 People v. Villaruel, 238 SCRA 408.
30 People v. Reyes, 236 SCRA 264.
685
685
they serve to strengthen their credibility and are taken as badges of truth rather than as indicia of
falsehood31 even as they also erase suspicion of rehearsed testimony.32
All considered, the case against the appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt even with the
retracted extra-judicial admission of Joelito Descartin.33 The testimony of a single witness, if found to
be credible, is adequate for conviction.34 The defense of alibi hardly can overcome the positive
identification of an unprejudiced eyewitness.35
Like the trial court, we are not persuaded that robbery has been proven to be the principal motive for
the crime that can warrant the conviction of appellants for the complex crime of robbery with
homicide.36 Appellants could only thus be held responsible for the killing of Mansueto. Conspiracy
among the appellants has been established beyond doubt by the sum of their deeds pointing to a joint
purpose and design.37
Three aggravating circumstances were alleged in the information, i.e., treachery, evident premeditation
and abuse of superior strength. The trial court disregarded the circumstance of evident premeditation
and concluded that the attack upon Mansueto was committed with treachery and abuse of superior
strength. On its finding that the assault was unexpectedly perpetrated upon the unarmed victim to
ensure its execution without risk to
_______________
31 People v. Ponayo, 235 SCRA 226.
32 People v. Joya, 227 SCRA 9.
33 On 18 January 1985, Joelito (Julito) Descartin executed an affidavit stating that his confession was
extracted by the police in violation of his constitutional rights as an accused. Clearly designed to
exonerate his uncle, Roberto Descartin, he stated therein that on the whole day of 29 November 1984,
he never saw Roberto Descartin (Exh. 4).
34 People v. Abapo, 239 SCRA 469; People v. Pablo, 239 SCRA 500; People v. Evangelista, 235 SCRA 247;
People v. Paglinawan, 233 SCRA 494; People v. Torres, 232 SCRA 32.
35 People v. Barlis, 231 SCRA 426; People v. Espinoza, 228 SCRA 143; People v. Escosio, 220 SCRA 475.
36 People v. Cadevida, 219 SCRA 218; People v. Barlis, 231 SCRA 426, 443.
37 People v. Bayrante, 235 SCRA 19.
686
686
themselves from the defense that the victim might make, the trial court appreciated treachery, which it
deemed as having so absorbed abuse of superior strength.
The trial court was correct when it concluded that the crime committed was murder, a crime technically
lower than robbery with homicide,38 not, however, because of the attendance of treachery but of
abuse of superior strength. Treachery, in our view, was not satisfactorily proven by the prosecution.
Francisca Espina simply testified that appellant Plasencia stabbed Mansueto while the latter and the
appellants were in a huddle. There was nothing adduced on whether or not the victim gave provocation,
an indispensable issue in the proper appreciation of treachery.39 The presence, nonetheless, of the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to murder.40 The three
appellants utilized superiority in numbers and employed deadly weapons in assaulting the unarmed
Mansueto.
There being no other aggravating or mitigating circumstances to consider, the trial court aptly imposed
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the medium period41 of the penalty of reclusion temporal maximum
to death prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In conformity with prevailing
jurisprudential law, the heirs of the victim should be indemnified in the amount of P50,000.00.42
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting appellants Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin
and Joelito (Julito) Descartin of the crime of murder and imposing on each of them the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the indemnity to the heirs of the
victim, Herminio Mansueto, is raised to P50,000.00. Costs against appellants.
_______________
38 AQUINO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Vol. III, 1988 ed., p. 111.
39 People v. Abapo, 239 SCRA 469.
40 People v. Caras, 234 SCRA 199; People v. Cantre, 186 SCRA 76; People v. Dumpe, 183 SCRA 547;
People v. Resayaga, 159 SCRA 426.
41 Art. 63(1), Revised Penal Code. People v. De la Cruz, 216 SCRA 476; People v. Pletado, 210 SCRA 634;
People v. Sabornido, 214 SCRA 150.
42 People v. Adonis, 240 SCRA 773; People v. Logronio, 214 SCRA 519; People v. Serdan, 213 SCRA 329;
People v. Sison, 189 SCRA 643.
687
687
People vs. Pidia
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano (Chairman), Romero, Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.
Notes.—Inconsistencies and contradictions which refer to minor details do not affect credibility of
witnesses. (People vs. De Asis,228 SCRA 267 [1993]) A superiority of numbers per se is not sufficient to
bring the
case within the purview of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. (People vs.
Escoto, 244 SCRA 87 [1995])
——o0o—— [People vs. Plasencia, 249 SCRA 674(1995)]

People Vs Plasencia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Plasencia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Plasencia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED