People vs Villagonzalo, 238 SCRA 215 (Nov. 18, 1994)

“the court takes judicial notice of the common (human) experience of mankind and non-adherence thereto renders testimonies inherently improbable.”

Facts:
Accused-appellants Leoniza Villagonzalo and Renito Moro were accused for committing a crime of murder and was sentenced guilty by the court. Both were allegedly conspirators in killing Ricardo Tan, the common-law spouse of Villagonzalo and they conspired with other respondents Dela Cruz and Asentista who were not apprehended by the police. Dela Cruz and Asentista were allegedly hired by both Moro and Villagonzalo to kill Tan as evidenced by the testimony of Tito Alquizar and Prescilla Villarin who also work for Tan. Villarin is the helper and Alquizar is both the helper and farmhand of Tan.

According to Alquizar and Villarin, they were present when the four accused were contemplating a plan on how to kill Tan. They alleged to be present from the time Moro and Villagonzalo offered Dela Cruz and Asentista money to kill Tan and also during the time Moro provided a gun to both men before the victim was shot. They alleged that Moro and Villagonzalo are having an affair and want to kill Tan so they can live together. The court rendered a judgment of guilty for murder to Villagonzalo and Moro. The appellants now pray for the reversal of the judgment contending that the lower court erred in believing prosecution witnesses Alquizar and Villarin whose testimony are patently false and contrary to human experience and assailed the credibility of the witnesses whose testimonies were relied upon by the court in giving judgment.

Issue: Whether or not the witnesses Alquizar and Villarin credible witnesses?




Ruling:
The court ruled that it cannot give credence to the testimonies given by both witnesses as it invoke the principle that evidence must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but also must be one that is credible in itself. The measure of value and weight of a witness testimony is based on the conformity to the knowledge of common experience of mankind. The court finds it unbelievable that both witnesses were present when they allegedly heard the plot to kill the victim and the court finds it an incredible possibility that all events leading to the killing of the victim were made known to them without any apparent reason.

It was apparent to the court that the testimonies given by the witnesses were fabricated or rehearsed. Thus, their testimonies were no longer their own personal experience which forfeits the probative value of their testimony as they no longer speak based on their experience and memory and the court finds it just to maintain the presumption of innocence of the accused. The court ruled that in the criminal justice system the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of an accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If the court is able to entertain a reasonable doubt, then it does not fulfill the test of moral certainty required to support a conviction. The accused were acquitted.