Case Title People v.

Queliza,
GR No. || G.R. No. 124135 (1997) || Ponente: MELO, J. || Topic: positive and negative testimony

Facts:

At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of October 30, 1992, Victoriano together with his wife Teresita and
son were resting in their bamboo hut. Danny Queliza suddenly opened the door of the house and shot to
death Victoriano. This was seen by the wife. Loreta, a neighbor and mother of Victoriano, saw Danny
Queliza, together with two companions, as she was then outside her house to answer for a call of nature.
She heard the sounds of gunshots and saw the trio went away.Teresita went outside her house and met
Loreta. She told her, “Nay awan ni Victoriano pinatay ni Danny Queliza” (“Mother, Victoriano is already
gone, he was killed by Danny Queliza”).

Accused-appellant Danny Queliza, on the other hand, presented the defense of alibi. Corroborated by
witnesses William Raboy and Cornelia Romero, accused-appellant's defense is to the effect that at the
time of the incident he was in Arnedo, Bolinao to go swimming at the sea with his cousins; and that he
returned to his hometown only on December 21, 1992 when he voluntarily surrender to the police
authorities of Bani, Pangasinan to deny any knowledge of the incident.

In giving credence to the prosecution's evidence, the trial court noted the opposing contentions of
Teresita Cabangon, as corroborated by Loreta Cabangon, and that of Patrolman Dollaga. Teresita
Cabangon testified that when she was asked by Dollaga who killed her husband, she identified the
accused-appellant. This was corroborated by Loreta Cabangon, who testified that she heard her
daughter-in-law reveal to Dollaga the identity of the assailant. On the other hand, Dollaga said that for
three times during his interrogation on the very night of the incident, he asked the widow who killed her
husband and she disclaimed knowledge thereof. Faced with these contradictory contentions, the trial
court preferred the affirmative over the negative testimony.

Issue(s):

i. WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE

Ruling:
SC:

It is plain that the declarations of Teresita Cabangon and Patrolman Dollaga are both positive in nature.
Teresita said that she identified her killer when she was interrogated by Dollaga. Patrolman Dollaga, on
the other hand, testified to something known to himself, namely, that Teresita did not divulge the identity
of the assailant.

However, taken in its totality, in contrast to the defense of denial made by accused-appellant, which is
indeed negative testimony, we give greater weight to Teresita's positive identification of the culprit and her
testimony on the circumstances of the murder. This was corroborated by Loreta Cabangon that (a) she
saw accused-appellant enter the balcony of the house of the deceased moments before the fatal gunshot
was heard, and (b) immediately thereafter she saw accused-appellant with a gun in his right hand leaving
the victim's house.
Even assuming that Teresita did delay in revealing the identity of her husband's assailant, this should not
destroy the essence of her testimony, mainly, the positive identification of accused-appellant as the
culprit.

The record shows that it was only on November 16, 1992, or a delay of only 16 days from the commission
of the crime on October 30, 1992, when Teresita Cabangon reported the crime to the police authorities
and named accused-appellant as her husband's assailant. She did this when she executed her affidavit
which was presented during the preliminary investigation of the case at bench.

However, we believe that the slight delay is not a far from ordinary human experience. We have to
understand the human psyche given the morbid and horrific situation Teresita Cabangon was in. She
witnessed her husband's death. For a moment, her husband was sleeping peacefully; the next moment,
he was dead. So violent was his death that the poor wife saw blood come out from his head and she saw
his right eye bulge. Such dreadful circumstances would undoubtedly leave the helpless wife in fright and
in shock. Fear of the assailant's return to kill her and her son was also a natural reaction. Hence, it was
normal and not unreasonable for Teresita Cabangon to have taken her time to muster enough strength to
identify her husband's assailant, whom she saw with her own eyes that fatal night.

There is no rule that the suspect in a crime be named by a witness hurriedly.

It has always been our ruling that inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness with respect to minor
details or inconsequential matters may be disregarded without impairing the credibility of the witness.

In sum, we give great weight to Teresita Cabangon's testimony that it was accused-appellant who fired
the fatal gunshot which killed her husband while he was asleep last October 30, 1992, which declaration
is corroborated by Loreta Cabangon's testimony that she saw the accused-appellant near the crime
scene before and after the murder, carrying a hand gun. These declarations are credible in themselves,
they belie the accused-appellant's defense of alibi, and prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was
accused-appellant who murdered the deceased.

Doctrine:
Evidence is negative when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact, and
positive when the witness affirms that a fact did not occur.

Additional Notes:

The requisites of res gestae as an exception to the hearsay rule were laid down: (1) that the principal act
or the res gestae be a startling occurrence; (2) the statement is spontaneous or was made before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise, and the statement is made during the occurrence or immediately
prior or subsequent thereto; and (3) the statement made must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.