Dovetailing - People v. Alviar

5/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 059
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Alviar
*
No. L-32276. September 12,1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE

ALVIAR Y TUAZON, defendant-appellant.
Evidence; Credibility of witnesses; Fabrications and falsehoods of

witnesses; Effect of—The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as to the
vital incidents that constituted, according to the trial court, the chain of
circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused as the perpetrator of the
crime charged, are so surprisingly harmonious and fitting with one another,
such that not even the slightest inconsistency can be detected in them. Such
perfect dovetailing of the witnesses’ testimonies cannot but generate a
suspicion that the various material circumstances the prosecution witnesses
testified to were integral parts and parcels of a well-though of and
prefabricated story. The prosecution witnesses appear to have been willing
pupils diligently instructed on how to make their several testimonies fit in
with each other. The testimonies have the earmarks of a manufactured story
which clearly appear upon scrutiny of the facts which the court held to have
been proven by the prosecution. It is enlightening to recall that “where a
witness undertakes to swear positively from mere memory to the fraction of
hours or to minutes, we may well distrust his testimony and doubt his
sincerity.”
Same; Same; Payments to witnesses to testify; Effect of—The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are suspicious not only because of
their absolute concurrence and dovetailing as to principal points and paucity
of particulars and details, but also because there was evidence that the said
witnesses were paid and were taught what they should testify.
Same; Weakness of prosecution’s evidence; Death by drowning; Facts
show the possibility of the victim’s death due to accident or to suicide.—
There is another fatal infirmity in the prosecution’s evidence. The facts
considered by the trial court as having proved
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000163869a95e23d5a29df003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/31
137
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 137
People vs. Alviar
appellant’s guilt do not show that it was impossible that the deceased might
have died because of accident or because she committed suicide. The
deceased died from asphyxia caused by drowning. The results of the
autopsy would not vary whether the deceased committed suicide, or she was
drowned by another, and it may be added, even if her death was due to an
accident. It has been said that in case of grown-ups, medical evidence will
not be able to tell whether a death which occurred by drowning was due to
accident, suicide, or homicide.
Same; When theory of suicide cannot be brushed aside.—The theory
and defense that the deceased committed suicide cannot be brushed aside as
flimsy and improbable, for first, according to the results of the autopsy,
there were no indications of foul play in the deceased’s body there being no
wounds and no injuries in the whole skeletal framework, and no ante
mortem contusions or abrasions; and second; there are important facts and
circumstances that tend to prove that the deceased’s death might have been
suicidal, namely: the presence of motivational factors, the suicidal notes,
and the suicidal attempts.
Same; Same; Motives for suicide.—Disappointment in love as well as
loss of money, mental depression and psychopatic tendencies, among others,
may be sufficient motives for suicide.
Same; Same; Methods of communicating suicidal ideas.—It should be
noted at the outset that the methods of communicating suicidal ideas vary.
There may be direct statement of an intent to commit suicide or a wish to
die, or mere vague statements showing preoccupation with death, suicide,
and methods of suicide. Any expression of defeat, despair, hopelessness, or
a wish to disappear should serve as a warning of a suicidal risk. Generally, a
suicide note does not contain specific details of the suicidal act. The suicide
seems more intent on other things such as previsions for the family and
loved ones, instructions, requests and the like.
Same; Guilt of the accused should not be assumed; Acts of accused
after his wife was gone consistent with innocence.—The trial court
disbelieved the accused’s testimony and defense on the ground, among
others, that his acts after his wife was gone were unnatural and indicative of
a bothered conscience. The trial court’s conclusion would be plausible if it is
assumed that the accused was guilty. But that was the factum probandum,
and it could not and should not be assumed. The acts of the accused in fact
could very well be consistent with his innocence.
Same; Proof of motive to commit the offense charged; When
138
People vs. Alviar
necessary.—There is likewise no proof of the motive that might have

impelled the appellant to commit the alleged parricide. Generally, proof of
motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of
the crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing;
however, where the proof of identification is not convincing, the proof of
motive is necessary.
Conspiracy; Conspiracy as means in the commission of the offense;
Although evidence of conspiracy is absent, commission of the crime charged
may still be proved.—It is to be noted that the two accused were not charged
with conspiracy as a distinct and separate offense. Conspiracy was alleged
in the information as one of the means in the commission of the parricide.
Evidence of conspiracy in the commission of the offense may be wanting,
but, from that it does not necessarily follow that there cannot be sufficient
evidence regarding the commission of the crime charged.
Direct contempt; Giving false testimony while acting as a witness;
Punishment for.—The witness is guilty of direct contempt, for he gave false
testimony while acting as a witness, and his misbehavior was committed in
the presence of or so near a judge or court, as to obstruct the proper
administration of justice. The punishment meted against him of
imprisonment for 30 days was, however, excessive, for according to section
1 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, direct contempt is punishable by fine not
exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten days, or
both, if it be committed against a superior court or judge thereof, or by fine
not exceeding ten pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one day, or both, if
committed against an inferior court.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Mariano, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor
General Eduardo C. Abaya and Solicitor Salvador C. Jacob for
plaintiff-appellee.
E.B. Garcia & Associates for defendant-appellant.
ZALDIVAR, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pasig,

Rizal, in its Criminal Case No. 15358 finding the accused Jose
Alviar y Tuazon guilty of the crime of parricide, sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs

of the deceased Dolores Imson Alviar
139
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 139

People vs. Alviar
the sum of F12,000.00 and to pay the costs.

The undisputed facts follow:
On November 6, 1965 the body of an unknown woman was
found by members of the Makati Police Department floating near
the bank of the West Rainbow Area of the Pasig River. The corpse
was brought to the morgue of the Funeraria Quiogue, Manila, for
possible identification, claim of any relative or friend, and autopsy.
Nobody appeared to claim the body, and after the fingerprints of
the deceased were taken, autopsy was performed by Dr. Ricardo G.
Ibarrola, Jr., of the National Bureau of Investigation.
On November 7, 1965, the body was interred in the South Cemetery of

Makati, Rizal. The body was later exhumed and transferred to the Pateros
cemetery.
The fingerprints lifted from the cadaver were found identical with
the fingerprints of Dolores Imson Alviar on file with the Election
Registrar of Pateros, Rizal.
An information was later filed in the Court of First Instance of
Pasig, Rizal, charging Jose Alviar Tuazon together with Antonio
Cotas with parricide, which reads as follows:
“That on or about the 5th day of November, 1965, in the municipality of

Pateros, province of Rizal, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, confederating and conspiring together did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill Dolores Alviar
(lawfully wedded wife of Jose Alviar y Tuazon) by beating her to
unconsciousness and then by throwing her unconscious body into the river,
where she was later on fished out dead.”
The evidence for the prosecution follows:

Crisanto B. Gonzales, first witness for the prosecution testified
on direct examination that at about ten minutes to 1:00 o’clock a.m.
of November 5, 1965, when he was 1
going home walking from a
gambling den at Pateros, Rizal, he saw Dolores running in
Tabacalera St. and her husband, the accused, Jose Alviar, was
running after her; that when Jose Alviar overtook her, he pulled her
hair, twisted
2
her right arm behind her, and pushed her back to their
house; that he was able to identify
________________
1 TSN, December 14, 1955, p. 5.

2 Ibid., p. 8.
140

People vs. Alviar
Dolores and Jose because 3

of a post that was brightly lighted in the
place where he stayed . On cross examination, he admitted that he
had never told
4
anybody, not even his wife and 5nine children, about
what he saw before he was presented as witness .
Loida Buenaventura, the second prosecution witness, testified on
direct examination that at about 9:00 o’clock p.m. of November 4,
1965,6 she was at her house located at C. Sexon Street, Pateros,
Rizal and which was about 4 to 5 meters from the accused’s house;
that she heard the accused, Jose Alviar, and Dolores Imson Alviar
quarreling in their house about an umbrella 7
and notebook which
Dolores claimed she left in the house; that afterwards Dolores
became jealous, and 8
said that the umbrella and the notebook might
be with Jose’s girl ; that Dolores said she would leave and go to her
mother’s house, 9
but Jose warned her not to go otherwise something
would happen ; that Dolores cried, and then there was silence; that
Jose later left the house and
10
went alone to his parent’s house which
was just across the street ; that after a few moments, Jose returned
to their house, and they continued 11quarreling, but she could not
understand what they were saying , and that Dolores stopped
talking, and there was silence; and that she12 (witness) went to bed
and slept at about past 10:00 o’clock p.m. ; that between 1:00 to
2:00 o’clock a.m. the following day, she was awakened by the rain
entering the windows, so she got up to close the windows; that when
she was to close one panel, she saw 13Dolores going out the street
followed by Jose who was chasing her ; that after14 10 minutes, they
came back, Dolores’ left arm being held by Jose ; that when they
reached the door
________________
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid., pp. 27-28.
5 Ibid., p. 28.
6 TSN, January 16, 1967, p. 4.
7 Ibid., pp. 9-10.
8 Ibid., p. 12.
9 Ibid., p. 14.
10 Ibid., p. 15.
11 Ibid., pp. 17-18.
12 Ibid., pp. 18-19.
13 Ibid., p. 20.
14 Ibid., p. 22.
141
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 141

People vs. Alviar
of their house, Jose pushed 15

Dolores who fell in a prone position
(“pasubsob”) to the floor ; that Jose later entered the house and
closed the door, after which she heard a loud sound (“kalabog”) as if
a heavy object was thrown against the wall, 16
and Dolores moaning
“Ina ko po”, and then there was silence ; that she then saw Jose
going out of their house with Dolores* left hand over his shoulder
and his right hand around Dolores’
17
waist and Dolores’ head was
hanging (“nakalungayngay”) ; that Jose happened to look at her
window and saw her, so Jose returned to his house and closed the
door; and that she left the window and remembered that Dolores told 18
her that if they happened to quarrel again, she should keep watch ;
that after Dolores was brought to the house, she did not hear any
more sound and saw nothing more; that after 19
that witness sat down
on her trunk and did not sleep anymore ; that at about dawn of
November 5, 1965, she went near the river to throw garbage, and
she saw at about 16 yards20
from her Jose with a flashlight focused on
the bank of the river ; that after throwing the garbage she went
home; that between 6:00 to 7:00 o’clock a.m. also of November
5,1965, Jose called up her house and asked her if she saw something
at 3:00 o’clock a.m., because Jose said Dolores left at around 3:00
o’clock a.m., to which she answered that she saw nothing as she was
already sleeping; that she said this because21 she did not want Jose to
know that she knew what had happened . On cross examination,
witness Loida Buenaventura admitted that she never told what she
saw to her children, or to her husband who went home 22
at about 4:00
o’clock a.m. of November 5, 1965, or to the police ; that the first
time she narrated the incident was when she went to the 23
National
Bureau of Investigation where she executed an affidavit ; that she
could not remember what Jose was wearing or the color of the dress
or pants of Jose, or if Jose had
________________
15 Ibid., pp. 22-23.

16 Ibid., pp. 24-25.
17 Ibid., pp. 28-29.
18 Ibid., p. 30.
19 Ibid., pp. 32-33.
20 Ibid., pp. 33-34.
21 Ibid., pp. 38-39.
22 Ibid., pp. 51-53.

23 Ibid., pp. 53-55.
142

People vs. Alviar
24
something on his feet that evening of November 4, 1965 ; that she
did not have a clock or wristwatch in her house; that she could not
calculate how long an hour was; that she only calculated the time
when25 she said that Jose Alviar left his house at about 9:00 o’clock
p.m. ; that she did not notice the color26 of Dolores’ dress when the
latter left her house for the first time and 27
that her hair was not
dishevelled and not completely groomed ; that28 almost every night
Jose and Dolores quarrelled because of jealousy ; that she could not
be sure of 29
what Jose was wearing when she saw him with a
flashlight , nor30
what Jose and Dolores were wearing the third time
she saw 31
them ; that on several occasions, she rode in the car of Mrs.
Young .
Dr. Ricardo G. Ibarrola, medico-legal officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation, and third prosecution witness, on direct
examination, identified Exhibit “C”, the Necropsy Report, and
testified that he conducted the post-mortem
32
examination at 3:00
o’clock p.m. of November 6, 1965 ; that before said examination,
the fingerprints were taken; that he was informed at33 about noon of
November 6,1965 that he was to perform an autopsy ; that the body, 34
because of its foul smell, was buried immediately after the autopsy ;
that the clothing taken from the body was identified by one
Asuncion Dayco;35
that pictures (Exhs. F and F-1) were taken before
the autopsy ; that the body was in an advanced state of
decomposition; that the woman must have died36from 36 to 48 hours
before the autopsy; 37that she died of drowning ; that there were no
injuries in the bones ; and that it was dangerous
________________
24 Ibid., pp. 56-57.

25 Ibid., pp. 60-61.
26 Ibid., p. 101.
27 Ibid., p. 101.
28 Ibid., p. 112.
29 Ibid., p. 119.
30 Ibid., pp. 122-123.
31 Ibid., pp. 143-144.
32 TSN, February 8, 1967, p. 11.
33 Ibid., pp. 14-15.
34 Ibid., p. 15.
35 Ibid., p. 25.
36 Ibid., p. 26.
37 Ibid., p. 30.
143
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 143

People vs. Alviar
38
to state whether there were external injuries . On cross examination,
he admitted that one of the purposes
39
of the autopsy was to determine
whether there was foul play ; that in the whole skeletal framework,
40
including the skull, of the body, he did 41not find any injury ; that
there were no open wounds on the body ; that the cause of death
was asphyxia,
42
which could be true also if a person committed
suicide . On redirect examination, he testified that it was dangerous 43
to say, because of the decomposition, if there were any hematoma44;
that there were no signs of ante mortem contusions or abrasions ;
that his findings would also be true, if at the 45time the victim was
submerged, she was conscious or unconscious ; that 46a person who
knows how to swim can also kill himself by drowning ; that even if
a person
47
knows how to swim, the tendency of the body is to go
down ; that the body was also wearing
48
a panty, but he did not think
she was wearing any brassieres ; that from the contents of49 the
stomach, death must have occurred five hours after her last meal .
Captain Federico Bautista, a Makati police officer, and fourth
prosecution witness, testified that on or about 10:00 o’clock a.m. of
November 6, 1965, they took pictures (Exhs. “H”, “H-l” and “H-2”)
of the dead body of an unidentified woman 50
floating at the river bank
of West Rainbow area in Fort Bonifacio.
Ceferino Cuevas, fifth prosecution witness, testified on direct
examination that at about 7:00 o’clock a.m. of November 6, 1965,
while he and his wife were riding on a motor banca, coming from
West Rainbow, they saw the body of a woman
________________
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid., pp. 43-44.
40 Ibid., p. 46.
41 Ibid., p. 49.
42 Ibid., pp. 51-52.
43 Ibid., p. 62.
44 Ibid., p. 64.
45 Ibid., p. 65.
46 Ibid., pp. 67-68.
47 Ibid., pp. 69-70.
48 Ibid., p. 86.
49 Ibid., p. 89.
50 TSN, March 7, 1967, pp. 8-9.
144

People vs. Alviar
floating on the river;

51
and that there was piece of cloth tied to the left
wrist of the woman .
Damaso Cruz, sixth prosecution witness, testified on direct
examination that on his way home from the gambling place which
he left between 1:00 and 1:15 o’clock a.m. of November 52
5, 1965, he
noticed “kalabugan” inside the house of Jose Alviar as if some
persons were quarreling; that because he had stomach ache at that
time, he entered the53premises of Peping Garcia, went near the river,
to move his bowels ; that while he was moving his bowels, he saw
at the back of the house of Peping Alviar three persons, that is, 54a
woman in the middle with her arms over the shoulders of two men ;
that the woman was unconscious, 55
and her head was hanging
sidewards, (“nakalungayngay”) ; that he recognized the accused 56
Jose Alviar, but did not recognize the other man or the woman57 ; that
he saw them coming towards the river, but they turned back ; that
he recognized
58
Jose Alviar by the lighted post near the bank of the
river ; that he saw only one banca at that time between
59
the boundary
of the premises of Peping Garcia60 and Jose Alviar ; that after he saw
the three coming, he went home . On cross examination he61admitted
that he never narrated or reported what he saw to the police 62
; that he
was investigated in the National
63
Bureau of Investigation and in the
Municipal Court of Pateros ; that the signature
64
in Exh. “5” was his;
that the banca was owned by Pepe Garcia ; that he
________________
51 TSN, March 7, 1967, p. 33.

52 TSN, March 7, 1967, p. 42.
53 Ibid., p. 45.
54 Ibid., p. 46.
55 Ibid., p. 47.
56 Ibid., p. 49.
57 Ibid., p. 50.
58 Ibid., p. 51.
59 Ibid., pp. 51-52.
60 Ibid., p. 52.
61 Ibid., p. 54.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid., p. 57.
64 Ibid., p. 68.
145
fsVOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 145

People vs. Alviar
could not65
remember what Jose Alviar and the woman were
wearing 66; and that he could not remember if he had a wristwatch at
that time .
Asuncion Dayco Ymson, the prosecution’s seventh witness,
testified on direct examination that Dolores was her daughter; that
the relationship between Dolores and Jose was good before they
begot children,
67
but after they had children the relationship68
became
different ; that she saw only once Jose boxing Dolores 69
; that the
spouses Jose and Dolores had separated twice 70
; that on one
occasion, Jose tried to make Dolores drink iodine for which reason
Dolores71 went to see Dr. Borja who advised 72
her to go to the
hospital ; that Dolores knew how to swim ; that the last time she
saw Dolores alive was on a Thursday when she was fetched in a
tricycle by Jose Alviar at night; that on the following Sunday, her
brother-in-law 73informed her that a certain woman was found dead in
West Rainbow ; that she never saw Jose again except two days later,
at 4:00 o’clock a.m. when she saw him inside her compound
standing on top of the septic tank74
and trying to peep through the
room where they used to sleep ; that she saw the body 75
of Dolores
when it was exhumed from the Makati cemetery ; and that she
identified the76
clothing of Dolores at the National Bureau of
Investigation
77
. On additional direct examination, she identified the
clothing.
On cross examination,
78
she admitted that he hated Jose for
harming her daughter ; that during all the time that Dolores and her
children were in Mindanao, Jose Alviar used to send
________________
65 Ibid., pp. 69-70, 95.

66 Ibid., p. 72.
67 TSN, March 7, 1967, pp. 102-103.
68 Ibid., p.105.
69 Ibid., p. 113.
70 Ibid., pp. 116-117.
71 Ibid., p. 118.
72 Ibid., p. 122.
73 Ibid., pp. 124-126.
74 Ibid., p. 127.
75 Ibid., p. 129.
76 Ibid., p. 132.
77 TSN, April 18, 1967, p. 44.
78 TSN, May 24, 1967, p. 7.
146

People vs. Alviar
79
P60.00 a month ; that when they returned, Jose brought his 80wife and
children to the Tuazon apartment in Herrera St., Pateros , where
they lived until their house was constructed; that she inquired from
her daughter why she was forced to81 take iodine and her daughter
answered that that was her problem , and that after that incident,
82
Jose brought Dolores to the Rizal Provincial Hospital ; that
sometime in July 1964, 83
she chased her daughter Dolores who was
knee-deep in the river ; that she was informed that if her daughter
committed suicide,
84
she would not get anything out of the deceased’s
insurance policy .
Virgilio Pabalan, the prosecution’s eighth witness testified on
direct examination that he was an autopsy attendant of the medico-
legal division, National Bureau of Investigation; and identified the
duster (Exh. “1-1”) and a mutilated 85
panty (Exh. “1-2”) that was
given to him by Dr. Ricardo Ibarrola .
Generoso Dangca, fingerprint examiner of the National Bureau
of Investigation, testified on direct examination that Dactiloscopic
Report FP65-231 (Exhibit “D-l”) was his report; that he took the
fingerprints (Exh. “D-l-A”) of the unknown cavader, compared them
with finger prints on file with the Election Registrar of Pateros,
Rizal, and found it identical
86
with those of Alviar, Dolores Dayco.
Ernesto Manalo , a tricycle driver, testified87 for the prosecution
that he knew the spouses Jose and Dolores ; that early in the
morning of November 5,1965, at about 1:35 o’clock a.m. he went to
the Pateros River to move his bowels; that while so doing he saw a
woman, Dolores Alviar, being placed in
________________
79 Ibid., p. 14.
80 Ibid., p. 15.
81 Ibid., pp. 23-24.
82 Ibid., p. 26.
83 Ibid., pp. 32-33.
84 Ibid., p. 38.
85 TSN, April 18, 1967.
86 Ernesto Manalo for having given false testimony was adjudged to have
committed direct contempt by the trial court and sentenced to suffer 30 days of
confinement in the provincial jail (TSN, October 16, 1967, p. 14). Of his testimony,
only that which refers to the prosecution witnesses having been given various
amounts of Mr. Young was considered by the trial court.
87 TSN, Sept. 12, 1967, p. 4.
147
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 147

People vs. Alviar
88
a banca by two men whom he did not know ; that the woman was
being forced 89
to make steps and her hands were hanging
downwards ; that the woman’s right hand was resting on the
shoulders90 of one of the men and the other was supporting 91
her
waistline ; that the men rode
92
in the banca and paddled away , while
Dolores was lying down ; that he was investigated by 93
the National
Bureau of Investigation in connection with the case ; that he was
forced to give a statement to the 94NBI but it was Atty. Lasal who
gave the answers in that statement ; that he was ordered to state in
his previous
95
statements that he recognized one of the men as Jose
Alviar .
On cross examination, witness Ernesto Manalo admitted 96
that he
was taught in the house of Mr. Young97
what to testify ; that he was
told to tell even lies to the NBI ;98 that it was Fiscal Sarmiento who
forced him to identify Jose Alviar ; that he was always
99
accompanied
by a policeman or bodyguard paid by Mr. Young ; that he was also
accompanied100 by that policeman to the National Bureau of
Investigation ; that what he said before that he saw a woman placed
in a banca by 101 two men was not true and that he was told or taught 102
only to say so , that the truth
103
was that he did not see the woman
and that he lied to the court ; that he corrected what he said before
because he104 could no longer bear the burden 105suffered by his
conscience ; that Mr. Young paid all the witnesses , namely, Loida
}
________________
88 Ibid., pp. 8, 20.

89 Ibid., p. 20.
90 Ibid., p. 20.
91 Ibid., p. 24.
92 Ibid., p. 26.
93 Ibid., p. 10.
94 Ibid., pp. 18-19.
95 Ibid., p. 33.
96 TSN, October 16, 1967, pp. 3-4.
97 Ibid., p. 4.
98 Ibid., p. 4.
99 Ibid., p. 5.
100 Ibid., p. 6.
101 Ibid., p. 8.
102 Ibid., p. 8.
103 Ibid., p. 9.
104 Ibid., p. 9.
105 Ibid., p. 9.
148

People vs. Alviar
106
Buenaventura who was given money 107
weekly by Mr. Young ;
Damaso108Cruz was paid P2,000.00 , Crisanto Gonzales was paid
P700.00 ; that109he was present when the money was given to them
by Mr. Young ; that Mr. Young was the owner110of Philippine Iron
Works and married to a cousin of Dolores Alviar .
Emiterio Manalo of the National Bureau of Investigation, and the
prosecution’s eleventh witness, testified on direct examination that
he was the one who investigated Ernesto Manalo at the NBI on
November 29, 1965; that Ernesto gave a statement (Exh. “J”) 111
and
the signature and thumbmark thereon were Ernesto Manalo’s ; that
he typed the questions; that
112
he and NBI agent Benjamin Antonio
propounded the questions ; and that Atty. Lasal, who 113 accompanied
Ernesto Manalo, did not interfere with the investigation .
The evidence for the defense follows:
Lydia Castillo, first defense witness and employee of Rizal
Provincial 114
Hospital, identified Exhibit 6, “Temporary Medical
Certificate” and115
Exhibit “9” Outside Patient’s Record Card” of
Dolores Alviar.
Perpetuo Garcia, another defense witness residing at C. Sexon
Street, Pateros, Rizal, testified on direct examination,
116
that he knew
Jose Alviar, Damaso Cruz, and Loida Buenaventura ; that his house
was fenced, with a locked gate, and that he had a big dog which he
did not hear barking
________________
106 Ibid., p. 10.

107 Ibid., p. 10.
108 Ibid., p. 10.
109 Ibid., p. 9.
110 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
111 TSN, November 22, 1967, pp. 17-18. The trial court having observed the
manner Ernesto Manalo testified noted his apparent mendacity, hence his testimony
was entirely disregarded for being incredible and unbelievable. Exhibit “J” was
rejected by the Court insofar as to the truth of what is stated therein, but admitted it as
a part of the testimonies of Ernesto Manalo and NBI agent Emiterio Manalo.
112 Ibid., p.10.
113 Ibid., p. 15.
114 TSN, September 2, 1968, p. 8.

115 Ibid., p. 12.
116 TSN, November 12, 1968, pp. 2-4.
149
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 149

People vs. Alviar
117
between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. of November 5, 1965 ; that he did not
remember having heard any noise in the house 118
of Jose Alviar at
about 1:00 o’clock a.m. of November 5,1965 ; that he slept 9:00
o’clock p.m. on November 4, 1965 and 119
woke up at 12:30 o’clock in
the morning of November 5, 1965 ; that he slept again120at about
2:00 o’clock a.m. and woke up at about 4:00 o’clock a.m. ; that he
did not know anything about a post with 121 electric bulb at the back of
his house as testified to by Damaso Cruz ; that in December, 1965,
Loida Buenaventura told him that she would testify against Jose
Alviar and would be paid 122by a Chinaman who was the husband of a
cousin of Dolores Alviar . On cross examination, he said that he
did not
123
remember anything unusual that took place on November 5,
1965 .
The appellant Jose Alviar Tuazon, testified
124
on direct examination
that the late Dolores Alviar was his wife ; that on May 22, 1964 he
received a letter (Exhibit “10”) from his wife; that in July 1964, his
wife went down the river beside the apartment where they were
residing, and was already knee-deep in the water when he caught up
with her, and that after that he recalled the
125
contents of Exhibit “10”
that his wife intended to commit suicide ; that on August 27, 1964,
he received from his wife another letter (Exhibit “11”) wherein 126
his
wife charged him with having relations with another woman ; that
in November, 1964, his wife went to Bambang Bridge, and when he
found her, his wife told him, that she did not succeed in committing
suicide because when she 127
was about to slip, she saw a policeman
and she became afraid ; that on February 21, 1965, he received
another letter. (Exhibit
128
“12”) from his wife and on March 6, 1965,
his wife took iodine , because she was
________________
117 Ibid., p. 5-6.

118 Ibid., pp. 7-9.
119 Ibid., p. 11.
120 Ibid., pp. 12-14.
121 Ibid., p. 15.
122 Ibid., pp. 17-21.
123 Ibid., p. 38.
124 TSN, December 18, 1968, p. 2.
125 Ibid., pp. 6-11.

126 Ibid., p. 15.
127 Ibid., pp. 16-18.
128 Ibid., pp. 21-26.
150

People vs. Alviar
129
jealous ; that he brought his 130
wife to the hospital where she was
given emergency treatment ; that the attending physician advised
him to submit
131
his wife to physical therapy in the National Mental
Hospital and a medical certificate, Exhibit “6”, was issued; that in
the evening of November 4, 1965, he arrived at his home between
6:30 and 7:00 o’clock; that his wife, who was living with his
mother-in-law, arrived at their house with a bowl of noodles; that his
wife refused to dine with him; that later his wife began looking for a
notebook and umbrella, which she was unable to find; that in the
discussion then ensued, his wife accused him of living with another
girl, which he denied; that after that she hang her clothes and went to
sleep; that at about 2:00 o’clock a.m. of November 5, 1965, his wife
told him that she would go down for personal reasons, but he did not
mind her and he continued to sleep; that thirty minutes later he
found out that his wife 132
was gone; that he looked for her in their
room and downstairs ; that he never talked to Loida Buenaventura
in the early morning of November 5, 1965; that there was no
“kalabugan”
133
in his house at 1:00 o’clock a.m. of November
5,1965 ; that he never hit his wife; that there was no light at the
back of the house of Perpetuo Garcia;134
that he never went out of his
house with a woman on that date ; that it was not 135
true that on that
night, Dolores left the house and he followed her ; that he was not
able to locate his wife in the morning of November 5,1965; that
when he came from work the next day, he did not find his wife at
home so he looked 136
for her all around the place, and in the place of
his mother-in-law ; that Mrs. Dayco saw137him on November 5, 1965
standing on the septic tank at her house ; and that he did not go
inside 138
the house because he was not in good terms with his mother-
in-law .
________________
129 Ibid., p. 28.

130 Ibid., p. 32.
131 Ibid., pp. 33-34.
132 Ibid., pp. 37-44.
133 Ibid., pp. 45-46.
134 Ibid., pp. 47-48.
135 Ibid., pp. 49-50.

136 Ibid., pp. 54-55.
137 Ibid., p. 56.
138 Ibid.
151
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 151

People vs. Alviar
On cross examination,
139
the accused admitted that his wife knew how
to swim a little ; that in May, 1953, his wife filed a case against him
for slight physical injuries in the Municipal 140
Court of Pateros to
which he pleaded guilty (Exhs. K and K-l) ; that his wife 141 filed a
complaint against him for support when they were separated ; that
on November 7, 1965 he went, on the advice of a relative, to the
National Bureau of Investigation, to identify the body 142
or the
personal belongings of his wife, and he identified the dress ; that he
was investigated by the National
143
Bureau of Investigation before the
case was filed against him ; that he informed 144
the National Bureau
of Investigation that his wife was missing ; that he was informed
where the145
body was and he went to the cemetery where she was
interred ; that he informed orally the caretaker of the cemetery that
he intended to exhume the cadaver, but he was informed that there
was another ahead of him and he found 146
out that there was already a
certificate for transfer of the remains ; that he reported that his wife
was missing to the relatives
147
of his wife, parents and the police of
Pateros on November 6 ; and that he148 wanted to attend the funeral,
but the Chief of Police prevented him .
The trial court believed the prosecution’s witnesses and, having
previously dismissed the case against the co-accused Antonio Cotas,
rendered its decision, finding appellant guilty of the crime of
parricide, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P12,000.
From this decision, appeal was interposed to this Court.
In his brief, appellant assigned the following errors, to wit: that—
________________
139 TSN, February 19, 1969, p. 32.

140 Exhibits K & K-1 were rejected by the Court for being immaterial in the case
in issue. TSN, Nov. 22, 1967, p. 57.
141 TSN, February 19, 1969, pp. 42-43.
142 Ibid., pp. 49-56, 61-63, 78-82.
143 Ibid., p. 60.
144 Ibid., p. 63.
145 Ibid., pp. 64-65.
146 Ibid., pp. 68-69.
147 Ibid., pp. 70-71.

148 Ibid., pp. 75-76.
152

People vs. Alviar
“I. The lower court erred in the appreciation and application of

the rule on conspiracy, circumstantial evidence and
procedure;
“II. The lower court erred in considering the testimony of the
prosecution witness Ernesto Manalo as retraction and
sentenced him to suffer thirty (30) days imprisonment for
contempt; and
“III. The lower court erred in convicting the accused based on
circumstantial evidence.”
I. In support of his first assigned error, appellant argued that the

information alleged confederation and conspiracy between him and
his co-accused Antonio Cotas, in the commission of the crime
charged, patently, due to the impossibility under the circumstances
prevailing, for one man alone to commit the crime; that when the
alleged co-conspirator was acquitted, the allegation of conspiracy
necessarily failed, for the simple reason that there could 149be no
conspiracy unless at least two are united in a criminal design ; that
consequently appellant must also be acquitted.
The first assigned error that because conspiracy between
appellant and his co-accused Cotas was alleged, the acquittal of his
co-accused Cotas must necessarily result in the acquittal of the
appellant cannot be seriously defended. It is to be noted that the two
accused were not charged with conspiracy as a distinet and separate
offense. Conspiracy was alleged in the information as one of the
means in the commission of parricide. Evidence of conspiracy in the
commission of the offense may be wanting, but, from that it does not
necessarily follow that there cannot be sufficient evidence regarding
the commission of the crime charged.
II. Appellant’s second assignment of error was that the court
erred in considering the testimony of prosecution witness Ernesto
Manalo as retraction and in sentencing him to suffer 30 days
imprisonment for contempt. We do not think that the trial court
committed an error in finding Ernesto Manalo guilty of direct
contempt, for he gave false testimony while acting as a witness, and
his misbehavior was committed in the presence of or so near the
judge or court, as to obstruct the proper administration of justice.
The punishment meted against Ernesto Manalo of imprisonment for
30 days was, however, excessive for according to Section 1 of Rule

71 of the Rules Of
________________
149 Brief for the Appellant, pp. 7-12.
153
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 153

People vs. Alviar
Court, direct contempt is punishable by fine not exceeding ten (10)

days, or both, if it be committed against a superior court or judge
thereof; or by fine not exceeding ten pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding one (1) day, or both, if committed against an inferior
court.
III. Appellant complained in his third assignment of error that the
trial court convicted him on the basis of circumstantial evidence and
argued that the court erred in saying that the evidence for defense
consisted merely of the denial of the accused; that the accused’s
theory of suicide was flimsy for the suicidal letters Exhs. 10,11, and
12 were not theories but facts; that the three attempts of the deceased
to commit suicide as borne by the evidence and admitted by the
mother of the deceased, Asuncion Dayco Ymson, were neither mere
theories but facts; that the appellant was made to answer for the
crime by the mother-in-law because of her demonstrated loathe
against him and her fear that she would not receive the proceeds of
the insurance policy if the deceased committed suicide; and that
there are many missing links in the circumstantial evidence
presented by the prosecution.
Appellee contended that appellant’s guilt of the crime charged
had been sufficiently and satisfactorily established by the
prosecution witnesses, as evidenced by the trial court’s decision.
We believe that, candidly considering all the evidence presented
by both the prosecution and the defense, appellant’s guilt has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Our conclusion is based on
the following reasons:
1. First, some facts and circumstances of weight and influence
have been overlooked by the trial court; their significance has been
misinterpreted; and the prosecution’s evidence suffered from an
inherent fatal weakness. We have noticed in the transcript of
stenographic notes that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
as to the vital incidents that constituted, according to the trial court,
the chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime charged, are so surprisingly harmonious and
fitting with one another, such that not even the slightest
inconsistency can be detected in them. Such perfect dovetailing of
the witnesses’ testimonies cannot but generate a suspicion that the

various material circumstances the prosecution witnesses testified to
were integral parts and
154

People vs. Alviar
parcels of a well thought of and prefabricated story. The prosecution

witnesses appear to have been willing pupils diligently instructed on
how to make their several testimonies fit in with each other. In other
words, the testimonies have the earmarks of a manufactured story
which clearly appear upon scrutiny of the facts which the court held
to have been proven by the prosecution. We quote hereunder the
very words of the trial court, but with such insertions from the
transcript and context that show how perfectly they fit each other, to
wit:
“The accused and the victim had not been living harmoniously as
husband and wife having quarrelled on several occasions and even
leading to separation and filing of a criminal case against the
accused; x x x On November 4, 1965, at about 9:00 o’clock in the
evening,” [as testified to by Loida Buenaventura] “the accused and
the victim quarrelled and the latter threatened the former that she
will go home to her mother’s house but the accused dared her not to
go saying ‘huwag kang maka-alis-alis’ with threats that should she
go, something would happen. Between 1:00 and 2:00 [o’clock] in
the early morning of November 5, 1965 the victim was seen” [by
Loida Buenaventura] “coming out of their gate going to the street
and followed by the accused a minute later.” [It so happened at that
very moment] that “witness Crisanto D. Gonzales” [who was then
going home from a gambling den which he left at about 1:00 a.m. of
November 5, 1965] “saw the victim walking towards the direction of
her mother’s house but the accused caught up with her. The accused
pulled the victim’s hair and twisted her hand and forced her to go
back to their house. Upon reaching home, the accused pushed the
victim against the door causing the victim to fall in a prone position
(pasubsub). The quarrel continued and a loud sound (kalabog) was
heard followed by the moaning of the victim. [This “kalabog” or
loud sound was also heard by Damaso Cruz on his way home from
the gambling place which he left between 1:00 and 1:15 a.m.,
November 5, 1965] [Between 1:00 to 2:00 o’clock a.m., the
following day as testified to by Loida Buenaventura] “the accused
was seen coming out of their house with the victim on his shoulder
but went back inside the house upon noticing Loida Buenaventura
still awake and was in her house. On the same early morning,
witness Damaso Cruz [who, as said earlier left the gambling place
between 1:00 and 1:15 o’clock a.m. of November 5, 1965,

providentially and luckily had
155
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 155

People vs. Alviar
stomach ache, entered the premises of Peping Garcia, and went near
the river to move his bowels] “saw the accused and another
unidentified man carrying in-between them an apparently
unconscious woman. He categorically identified the accused as one
of the men referred to. He recognized the accused as they knew each
other very well having lived together in the same locality and
considering that there was an electric light at the time.” [The other
prosecution witness, Ernesto Manalo, providentially and
coincidentally also went at about 1:35 o’clock a.m. of November 5,
1965 to the Pateros River to move his bowels and there saw two
men carrying the deceased Dolores.] [At about dawn of November
5, 1965] “witness Loida Buenaventura, [who did not throw garbage
on November 4, 1965 (TSN, January 16, 1967, p. 82)] while
disposing of some human waste into the river, saw the accused near
the bank with a flashlight focused at the bank. Bothered perhaps by
his conscience and to be sure that the witness did not see him, the
accused asked the witness [Loida Buenaventura]150
whether she
noticed something at about 3:00 a.m. x x x” After having read the
above should we not at this juncture take stock that while
circumstances cannot lie, they can be feigned, invented, distorted,
half-stated, misapplied, mistaken or lied about with most infernal
skill?
The times and occasions when the various prosecution witnesses
entered the chain of events also surprisingly fitted one another.
Loida Buenaventura admitted
151
that she did not have a clock or even a
wrist152watch in her house ; that she could not exactly calculate one
hour ; yet her guess as to the time when the quarrel of the spouse
began, even her guess regarding the length of time she slept, her
guess of the time Dolores went out to the street followed by the
appellant, her guess of the time she heard the “kalabog” or loud
sound, her guess as to the time that she allegedly saw the accused
coming out of the house with the victim on his shoulder, so perfectly
dovetailed with the witness Crisanto D. Gonzales’ leaving the
gambling den and reaching the appellant’s house, and, with Damaso
Cruz’s leaving the gambling den and moving his bowels when he
allegedly saw two men carrying the victim. The
________________
150 Record, pp. 36-37.
151 TSN, January 16, 1967, p. 60.

152 Ibid., p. 60.
156

People vs. Alviar
time pieces used by Crisanto and Damaso must have been perfectly
synchronized with Loida’s guesses. In this connection, it is
enlightening to recall that “where a witness undertakes to swear
positively from mere memory to the fraction of hours or to153minutes,
we may well distrust his testimony and doubt his sincerity.”
We also note that the prosecution witnesses had tenacious
memories not only as to time, but also as to vital incidents
constituting the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the
trial court, but were extraordinarily forgetful of, or inattentive
154
to,
incidental matters. This begets suspicion of veracity . Thus the
record shows that even if Loida Buenaventura claimed to have seen
the appellant at least six times from 9:00 o’clock p.m. of November
4 to dawn of November 155
5, she could not remember what the
appellant
156
was wearing ; she did not notice the color of his pants and
dress ; she 157
did not notice whether he was wearing
158
pajamas or
undershirt or whether he had any footwear or not . Loida likewise
saw the deceased that night four times, but she was completely
unobservant and/or forgetful of what Dolores was wearing. 159
She
testified that she did not notice what Dolores
160
was wearing ; that she
did not know the color of her161dress ; and that she did not notice
whether she had any footwear . Loida did not even relate what she
saw to her husband who arrived at 4:00 o’clock a.m. of November 5,
1965.
The timing of Crisanto B. Gonzales’ role perfectly fitted with
that of Loida Buenaventura.
162
Crisanto B. Gonzales left the gambling
place at 1:00 a.m. of November 5, 1965; he walked for two
minutes to cover a distance of only six or seven
________________
153 Moore, A Treatise on Facts, Vol. III, p. 988.

154 Moore, A Treatise on Facts, Vol. II, p. 1196.
155 TSN, January 16, 1967, p. 56.
156 Ibid., p. 56.
157 Ibid., p. 105.
158 Ibid., p. 57.
159 TSN, January 16, 1967, p. 74.
160 Ibid., pp. 101,123.
161 Ibid., p. 100.
162 The records says 11:00 o’clock a.m., but the trial court puts it at 1:00 a.m.,
TSN, December 14, 1966, pp. 4, 8, 10, 16.
157
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 157

People vs. Alviar
163 164
meters to the place where he urinated ; then he started walking
home reaching the neighborhood of appellant’s house exactly in
time to see Dolores running towards the house of her mother and
followed by appellant. His timing was thus perfectly synchronized
with that of Loida Buenaventura.
165
He was very sure of the time he
left the
166
gambling house even if he did not have a timepiece at that
time . He was cocksure not only of the time but also of the incident
he saw; but he did not notice whether the appellant 167
was wearing
footwear; he did not notice the color of his pants and did not even
remember the name of the street where the gambling house which he 168
said he frequented everyday from its establishment was located .
He did 169
not even know the name of the street where the appellant
lived.
Prosecution witness Damaso Cruz likewise fortunately left the
gambling place between
170
1:00 o’clock and 1:15 o’clock a.m. 171 of
November 5,1965 and he already had stomach ache when he left ;
he passed by the house of appellant just in time to hear the
“kalabugan” testified to by Loida Buenaventura, and after hearing
the loud noise, providentially desired, only at that time, to move his
bowels, so he entered the172premises of Peping Garcia, went near the
river to move his bowels and while doing so, what a coincidence 173
again! he saw three persons, a woman in the 174
middle of two men ,
and recognized the appellant as one of them and after that he went
home.
Again Damaso Cruz was very positive as to his testimony about
the time, although
175
he himself testified that he did not have a watch at
that time. He was also very positive as to the material incidents he
testified to but very evasive, unobservant
________________
163 TSN, December 14, 1966, p. 17.

164 Ibid.
165 Ibid., p. 12.
166 Ibid., p. 11.
167 Ibid., p. 50.
168 Ibid., p. 18.
169 Ibid., p. 5.
170 TSN, March 7, 1967, p. 41.
171 Ibid., p. 81.
172 Ibid., pp. 44-45.

173 Ibid., p. 47.
174 Ibid., p. 48.
175 Ibid., p. 72.
158

People vs. Alviar
and forgetful of the incidental matters. He could not tell 176 what the
appellant and the other man he allegedly saw were 177 wearing ; he did
not notice whether they were wearing footwear ; he could not
remember whether 178
he narrated what he saw to his wife and children
or to the police ; he could not even remember 179
if that was the first
time he entered Peping Garcia’s premises ; and neither 180
could he
remember at what time he arrived at the gambling place .
The other vital prosecution witness,181Ernesto Manalo, at about
1:35 o’clock a.m. of November 5, 1965 also answered the call of
nature 182at the Pateros River just in time to see two men and Dolores
Alviar . Such a close and minute agreement of the testimonies of
the witnesses 183
for the prosecution induces suspicion of confederacy
and fraud.
Apropos of the prosecution witnesses having testified only to
material facts and having been forgetful or non-committal with
particulars and details having relation with the principal facts, it has
been said that “it often happens with184fabricated stories that minute
particulars have not been thought of’ and “it is observed in courts
of justice that witnesses who come to tell a concerted story are
always reluctant to 185 enter into particulars, and perpetually resort to
shifts and evasions* . It has also been said that “an honest witness,
who has sufficient memory to state but one fact, and that fact a
material one, cannot be safely relied upon as such weakness of
memory not only leaves the case incomplete, but throws doubt upon
the accuracy of the statements made. 186
Such a witness may be honest,
but his testimony is not reliable.
2. Second, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
________________
176 Ibid., pp. 69, 95.

177 Ibid., p. 70.
178 Ibid., p. 54.
179 Ibid., p. 98.
180 Ibid., p. 92.
181 TSN, Sept. 12, 1967, pp. 6,7.
182 Ibid., p. 8. Ernesto Manalo’s having seen the two men and Dolores was not
considered by the trial court in its decision.
183 Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, 7th ed., p. 441.

184 Ibid., p. 441.
185 Ibid., pp. 438-439.
186 Francisco, Trial Technique and Practice Court, 3rd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 302-303.
159
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 159

People vs. Alviar
suspicious not only because of their absolute concurrence and

dovetailing as to principal points and paucity of particulars and
details, but also because there was evidence that said witnesses were
paid and were taught what they should testify. Prosecution witness
Ernesto Manalo testified that he was brought to the house of Mr.
Young, together with Atty. Lasal and a Fiscal, that he was told that
even if he did not know anything about the incident, he should make
a statement
187
or testify, and that he should tell what he was taught to
tell . He also testified, upon the court’s questioning,
188
that he
declared only that which he was taught to testify. He furthermore
testified in open court that Mr. Young paid all of the witnesses,
189
Crisanto Gonzales, Damaso Cruz and Loida Buenaventura ; that
Loida Buenaventura was given money weekly by Mr. Young; that
Crisanto Gonzales was paid P700.00; and that Damaso Cruz was
paid P2,000.00, 190and that he was present when the money was given
to the witnesses . Were these big amounts paid to the prosecution
witnesses to make them testify to the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? That the witnesses were paid was corroborated
by Perpetuo Garcia who testified that Loida Buenaventura told him
in December 1965 that she would testify against the appellant and
that for doing so she would be paid by a Chinaman191 who was the
husband of a cousin of the deceased Dolores Alviar . Even Loida
Buenaventura herself corroborated it when she admitted 192
that on
several occasions she rode in the car of Mrs. Young. Prosecution
witness Ernesto Manalo also testified that he was taught what to
testify. Were not those big sums of money given also for that
purpose, that said witnesses should testify what they were taught to?
If not, how can the incredible dovetailing of the prosecution
witnesses testimonies be explained? Noteworthy is the fact that the
prosecution did not even make an attempt to rebut such payments to
the witnesses.
3. Third, there is another fatal infirmity in the prosecution’s
evidence. The facts considered by the trial court
________________
187 TSN, September 12, 1967, p. 14; TSN, October 16, 1967, pp. 3, 4.
188 TSN, October 16, 1967., pp. 7,8.
189 Ibid., pp. 9-10.

190 TSN, October 16, 1967, pp. 9-10.
191 TSN, November 12, 1968, p. 21.
192 TSN, January 16, 1967, pp. 143-144.
160

People vs. Alviar
as having proved appellant’s guilt do not show that it was impossible

that the deceased might have died because of accident or because
she committed suicide.
From the results of the autopsy as testified to by Dr. Ibarrola, the
deceased died from asphyxia caused by drowning. The results of the
autopsy would not vary, according to Dr. Ibarrola, whether the
deceased committed suicide, or she was drowned by another, and it
may be added even if her death was due to an accident. Anent this
matter it has been said that in case of grown-ups, medical evidence
will not be able to tell whether a. death which
193
occurred by drowning
was due to accident, suicide, or homicide.
There is likewise no proof of the motive that might have impelled
the appellant to commit the alleged parricide. Generally, proof of
motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the
commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of
identification is convincing; however, where the proof 194 of
identification is not convincing, the proof of motive is necessary.
4. Fourth, appellant’s theory and defense that the deceased
committed suicide cannot be brushed aside, as the trial court did, as
flimsy and improbable, for first, according to the results of the
autopsy, there were no indications of foul play in the deceased’s
body there being no wounds and no injuries in the whole skeletal
framework, and no ante mortem contusions or abrasions; and
second, there are important facts and circumstances that tend to
prove that the deceased’s death might have been suicidal, namely:
the presence of 195motivational factors, the suicidal notes, and the
suicidal attempts.
Disappointment in love as well as loss of money, mental
depression and psychopatic 196 tendencies, among others, may be
sufficient motives for suicide. It is undisputed, as testified to not
only by the 197appellant but also by prosecution witness Loida
Buenaventura , that the deceased Dolores was a very jealous
________________
193 Herzog, Medical Jurisprudence, p. 227.

194 SCRA Quick Index-Digest, Vol. I, p. 862 and cases cited therein.
195 American Jurisprudence, Proof of Facts, Vol. 12, pp. 234-235.
196 Gonzales, et al., Legal Medicine, Pathology and Toxicology, 2nd ed., pp.
13,490.
197 TSN, January 16, 1967, p. 12.
161
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 161

People vs. Alviar
wife. In fact the quarrel on that fateful night of November 4 was

caused by jealousy, about an umbrella
198
and notebook which Dolores
claimed she left in their house , and not being able to locate them,
Dolores
199
said that the umbrella and notebook might be with 200
Jose’s
girl and Dolores accused Jose of living with another girl .
There are also suicidal notes and suicidal attempts. It should be
noted at the outset that the methods of communicating suicidal ideas
vary. There may be direct statement of an intent to commit suicide or
a wish to die, or mere vague statements showing preoccupation with
death, suicide, and methods of suicide. Any expression of defeat,
despair, hopelessness, or a 201wish to disappear should serve as a
warning of a suicidal risk. Generally, a suicide note does not
contain specific details of the suicidal act. The suicide seems more
intent on other things such as provisions 202
for the family and loves
ones, instructions, requests and the like.
Now to the suicidal notes and attempts. The first suicidal note on
the record is Exhibit “10”, a letter written on May 22, 1964 by the
deceased to her husband, Jose, which reads in part as follows:
“Dear Peping,
As a wife it is my duty to give you happiness although it calls for life taking.
I never deem that x x x you have another woman whom you can never part
with. You valued her at the expense of my love for you. I know before hand
that Fm really worthless to you, but I tried to gamble my love for you with
the hope that I can make you love me for the sake of the children. But that I
have experienced only false forced love. So my hope is in vain.
Peping, from this time you are free x x x I know that you are tired seeing
me, but only wait until I have enrolled Boy and see them go to school for a
week. After this you will not see me in town.
I’ll just part giving you complete happiness, x x x Please don’t forget
only to give your care for Baby & Boy. x x x
Loleng”
________________
198 Ibid., p. 10.

199 Ibid., p. 12.
200 TSN, December 18, 1968, p. 40.
201 American Jurisprudence, Proof of Facts, Vol. 12, p. 168.

202 Ibid., p. 170.
162

People vs. Alviar
The letter shows clearly the deceased’s disappointment in her love

for her husband, her defeat, hopelessness, a wish or threat to
disappear, and a request that Jose love their children. These are
various nuances of communicating suicidal ideas. What Dolores
meant by “life-taking”, “not seeing her in203town” in that letter of May
22, 1964 became clear in July 1964 , when she attempted to
commit suicide by going down the river beside the apartment where
they were residing but was unable to consummate the suicide for her
husband204caught up with her. This attempt was 205
testified to by the
accused and corroborated by Dolores’ mother .
The second suicidal note was another letter dated August 27,
1964 (Exhibit “11”) which reads in part thus:
“Dear Peping,
With my departure, I have come to know that you are ashamed of me in

public, x x x I’d like to help you give an ease to your situation. I don’t like
to be a hindrance to your happiness. In case you are really with another
woman, who will really make you happy, just tell me the truth and you will
not hear anything from me. I have sacrificed twelve years away from you
and I think I can manage to carry and risk it yet. For if we shall stay together
and your feeling is with another woman or your heart belongs to another,
our life will only be in grief x x x
P.S.
Although it is painful to part with you x x x I’ll try once to close my eyes
just to make you happy x x x Remember that I have tried to regain my love
to you. I’ll always love and care for you although I know that there is some
one more precious to you.
Same
Loleng”
This letter shows the woman’s defeat, disappointment and despair

because her love has been unrequited, and shows her intention to
ease the situation of the husband she loves.
________________
203 In a majority of cases, according to Proof of Facts, Vol. 12, p. 168, suicidal
ideas are expressed during a period that does not exceed one year preceding the
suicide, and in many cases the period does not exceed three months.
204 TSN, December 18, 1968, pp. 6-11.
205 TSN, May 24, 1967, pp. 32-33.
163
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 163

People vs. Alviar
What did Dolores intend to do to ease the situation of the husband?

The record gives the answer. In November, 1964, Dolores went
away from their house, and went to Bambang Bridge, in the
northeast of Pateros, Rizal, and when the husband found her, she
informed him that she did not succeed in committing206
suicide
because she was afraid of a policeman who saw her.
Again on February 21, 1965, Dolores wrote another letter
(Exhibit “12”) which in part reads thus:
“Dearest Peping,
I hope you will forgive me if my going to see you in Pampanga is a

disturbance to you. I never thought that you will be embarrassed.
From this time on, you will never hear anything from me x x x Just
remember that I love you and it is my happiness to see you happy with any
body.
Here is only my pleadings. If time does not warrant my life, please don’t
forget to educate Baby and Boy. Please love them in spite that you don’t
love me. I’m sorry that I lack the virtue that you like to see and love another
ladies.
My good luck for you & may God bless you. Cheer up with your
happiness.
Love & regards to you,
Loleng”
Another suicidal note showing a desire to die, hopelessness, and

making instructions and requests!
A few days later, that is on March 6, 1965, she gave the meaning
by her overt acts to what she meant by “if time does not warrant her
life” and “he would never hear anything from her again.” How tragic
jealousy can be! She drank207 iodine, but was saved by the timely
intervention of the 208
accused. This incident was corroborated by the
deceased’s mother.
If Dolores tried to commit suicide in those three instances
because of jealousy, was it not then probable that she also could
have tried to commit, and succeeded in committing it also because
of jealousy, on November 5, 1965? Anent this matter it has been said
that a decedent had made one or more previous
________________
206 TSN, December 18, 1968, pp. 17-18.

207 TSN, December 18, 1968, pp. 25-28.
208 TSN, May 24, 1967, pp. 23-26.
164

People vs. Alviar
suicidal209attempts is often relied by courts to sustain a verdict of

suicide.
5. Fifth, We do not agree with the trial court’s reason in
disbelieving appellant’s testimony and defense. One of those reasons
was that appellant’s acts after his wife was gone were unnatural and
indicative of a bothered conscience. The trial court’s conclusion
would be plausible if it is assumed that appellant was guilty. But that
was the factum probandum, and it could not and should not be
assumed. Appellant’s acts in fact could very well be consistent with
his innocence. Assuming that he was innocent, and assuming that it
was true that at dawn of November 5, 1965 he was at the river bank
with a flashlight focused at the river, it cannot be said unnatural for a
husband to look for his wife who slipped away at 3:00 o’clock a.m.
and who might have again gone to the river to commit suicide as she
had done before. The trial court also considered strange the
appellant’s asking Loida if the latter noticed something at about 3:00
a.m. Assuming that to be true, was it not compatible with accused’s
innocence to look for his wife, to ask others, especially the
neighbors, if the latter had seen her, she having slipped away at 3:00
o’clock? Is it strange for a husband to ask a neighbor such question?
That the accused was seen sneaking into the house of his mother-in-
law two days later could again be compatible with the accused’s
innocence. His wife was missing. He did not know where she was
and he was looking for her. Was it strange then that appellant might
have thought that she went home to her mother and might be hiding
there? If this was not strange, why should it be strange that the
appellant looked for her in that house?
Furthermore, the trial court could not believe that Dolores
committed suicide because Dolores, according to the appellant,
woke up appellant at 2:00 o’clock a.m. The trial court said that “if it
is true as claimed by the accused and as the defense would have this
Court to believe that the deceased committed suicide, the deceased
would not have warned him, much more wake him up and ask for
his permission to go downstairs for a while if her purpose then was
really to give end to her life. “ It is to be noted that according to the
record, at about 2:00 o’clock a.m. of November 5, 1965, Dolores
told appellant that she would go
________________
209 American Jurisprudence, Proof of Facts, Vol. 12, p. 193.
165
VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 165

People vs. Alviar
210
down for personal reasons. Dolores did not warn the accused that
she would commit suicide—she said that she was going down for
personal reasons. And even if the “personal reasons” meant “to
commit suicide,” still We find no improbability in a would-be
suicide to tell another
211
her intention, perhaps in order to arouse the
husband’s sympathy.
The trial court believed that the deceased was a victim of foul
play. This opinion is not in accordance with the findings of the
National Bureau of Investigation’s medico-legal officer Dr. Ibarrola
who found no injury in the whole skeletal framework including the
skull, and no signs of ante mortem contusions and abrasions.
Another reason advanced by the trial court for not believing that
the deceased committed suicide was that she knew how to swim. But
Dr. Ibarrola, when asked whether a person who knows how to swim
may drown, categorically answered that such a person can also kill
himself by drowning, that even if a person knows how to swim, the
tendency of the body is to go down the water.
WHEREFORE, We conclude that the prosecution’s evidence bas
not proved beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt of the crime
charged. The decision, therefore, of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, dated October 8, 1969, in its Criminal Case No. 15358 is set
aside, and the appellant is hereby acquitted of the crime charged.
The bond filed for the provisional liberty of appellant is ordered
cancelled. Costs de oficio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fernando, Barredo, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., took no part.
Decision set aside, appellant acquitted.
Notes.—a) Reasonable doubt.—Reasonable doubt means doubt

engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and
________________
210 TSN, December 18, 1968, p. 41.

211 In this connection it has been said that one of the most important facts to
emerge from the statistical data concerning suicide has been the disproof of the
popular belief that persons who talk about committing suicide rarely do so. That the
opposite is true is shown by the fact that more than half of those who commit or
attempt suicide in some manner communicate their suicidal ideas before they do so.
American Jurisprudence, Proof of Facts, Vol. 12, p. 168.
166

Genciana vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission
inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the
certainty of it (People vs. Alipis, L-17214, June 21, 1965).
b) Attempts to influence witnesses.—The admission of the mother
of the defendant that she offered money to a prosecution witness so
that the latter may refrain from testifying against her son is
inconsistent with her protestation that her son was innocent of the
crime with which he was charged. If her claim is true that her son is
innocent, the offer of money to a prosecution witness would appear
to be superfluous (People vs. Valera, L-20286, October 29, 1965).
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dovetailing - People v. Alviar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dovetailing - People v. Alviar

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Dovetailing - People v. Alviar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 059

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE

Evidence; Credibility of witnesses; Fabrications and falsehoods of

VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 137

People vs. Alviar

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Alviar

necessary.—There is likewise no proof of the motive that might have

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pasig,

suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs

VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 139

the sum of F12,000.00 and to pay the costs.

On November 7, 1965, the body was interred in the South Cemetery of

“That on or about the 5th day of November, 1965, in the municipality of

The evidence for the prosecution follows:

1 TSN, December 14, 1955, p. 5.

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolores and Jose because 3

VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 141

of their house, Jose pushed 15

15 Ibid., pp. 22-23.

22 Ibid., pp. 51-53.

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

24 Ibid., pp. 56-57.

VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 143

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

floating on the river;

51 TSN, March 7, 1967, p. 33.

fsVOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 145

65 Ibid., pp. 69-70, 95.

78 TSN, May 24, 1967, p. 7.

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

87 TSN, Sept. 12, 1967, p. 4.

VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 147

88 Ibid., pp. 8, 20.

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

106 Ibid., p. 10.

114 TSN, September 2, 1968, p. 8.

VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 149

117 Ibid., p. 5-6.

125 Ibid., pp. 6-11.

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

129 Ibid., p. 28.

135 Ibid., pp. 49-50.

VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 151

139 TSN, February 19, 1969, p. 32.

147 Ibid., pp. 70-71.

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“I. The lower court erred in the appreciation and application of

I. In support of his first assigned error, appellant argued that the

30 days was, however, excessive for according to Section 1 of Rule

149 Brief for the Appellant, pp. 7-12.

VOL. 59, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 153

Court, direct contempt is punishable by fine not exceeding ten (10)

the witnesses’ testimonies cannot but generate a suspicion that the

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

parcels of a well thought of and prefabricated story. The prosecution