8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 533

Guiyab vs. People

*
G.R. No. 152527. October 20, 2005.

JOEY GUIYAB y DANAO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Procedure; Judgments; Appeals; As a rule, appellate

courts will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in
passing upon the credibility of a witness, unless there appears in
the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which
has been overlooked, or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted or misapprehended.—As a rule, appellate courts
will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing
upon the credibility of a witness, unless there appears in the
record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which
has been overlooked, or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted or misapprehended. That general rule holds true
in this case.
Same; Witnesses; There is nothing in law or jurisprudence
which requires, as a condition sine qua non, that, for a positive
identification of a felon by a prosecution witness to be good, the
witness must first know the former personally.—We do not doubt
Joseph’s identification of Joey Guiyab. Even if he did not know
the name of the petitioner prior to the incident, he was able to
identify him in open court. Besides, Joseph maintained that
although he did not know the name of the petitioner, he knew him
by his face. There is nothing in law or jurisprudence which
requires, as a condition sine qua non, that, for a positive
identification of a felon by a prosecution witness to be good, the
witness must first know the former personally. The witness need
not have to know the name of the accused for so long as he
recognizes his face. We ruled that “knowing the identity of an
accused is different from knowing his name. Hence, the positive
identification of the malefactor should not be disregarded just
because his name was supplied to the eyewitness. The weight of
the eyewitness account is premised on the fact that the said
witness saw the accused commit the crime, and not because he
knew his name.”

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Guiyab vs. People

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for the People.

QUISUMBING, J.:
1
This petition for review seeks to set aside the Decision
dated September 27, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 23703, affirming the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 22, Cabagan, Isabela, in Criminal Case
No. 22-1074,
2
convicting Joey Guiyab of Homicide, and the
Resolution dated February 26, 2002 denying his motion for
reconsideration.
On March 11, 1993, petitioner Joey Guiyab was charged
with Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Cabagan.
The Information reads:

“That on or about the 12th day of December, 1992, in the

[M]unicipality of Tumauini, [P]rovince of Isabela, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
intent to kill and without any just motive, assault, attack and
stab with a bladed pointed instrument one Rafael Bacani,
inflicting upon him, a stab wound on the right anterior back wall,
which directly caused his death.
3
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

On arraignment, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel,

pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 71-95. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-

Fernando, with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner, and Mariano C. Del
Castillo concurring.
2 Id., at p. 101.
3 Records, p. 1.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

535

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 535

Guiyab vs. People

Prosecution witness JOSEPH MADRIAGA testified that on

December 12, 1992 at about 9:00 p.m., while the victim
Rafael Bacani and he were conversing in front of the
Community Center in Tumauini, a certain Juan Sanchez
approached and kicked them. As they posed for a fist fight,
petitioner Joey Guiyab uttered “Pureban nu ta inanna nu”
(You try and you will see.) while brandishing a knife. He
recalled that he retreated and jumped over the fence. He
then picked up a stone, grabbed Juan Sanchez by the hair
and struck him in the head. It was then that petitioner
chased him. Failing to catch him, petitioner turned to
Rafael who was following them. Petitioner stabbed Rafael
once on the right chest. Rafael ran a few meters before he
fell. Joseph and Rafael’s brother, Bong Matias, brought the
victim to the hospital.
DR. ERASMO A. CRUZ, the resident physician of
Isabela Integrated Provincial Health Office (otherwise
known as the Isabela Provincial Hospital), testified that at
around 10:45 in the evening of December 12, 1992, he
attended to Rafael Bacani. Rafael had a 1.5 centimeter stab
wound located on the fourth interpostal state (middle part
of the chest above the nipple). The victim died, according to
the medical certificate, of cardiorespiratory arrest, the
antecedent cause of which is hypovolemic shock and the
underlying cause is the stab wound at the anterior chest.
He died at about 6:25 a.m. the next day.
VISITACION MATIAS VDA. DE BACANI, the victim’s
mother, testified that she spent P10,000 for the medical
expenses, P18,000 for the coffin and P30,000 for the other
funeral expenses.
For his part, petitioner raised the defense of alibi. JOEY
GUIYAB testified that he was not at Tumauini Cultural
and Sports Center at the time the incident happened. He
averred that he was farming until 5:00 p.m. at Sitio
Bayabo, Camasi, and slept at around 9:00 p.m. in their
house at Sitio Bayabo. His testimony was corroborated by
Domingo Gumaru, and petitioner’s parents, Silvino and
Vicenta Guiyab.

536

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

Guiyab vs. People

DOMINGO GUMARU, petitioner’s neighbor, testified that

he saw the petitioner at Sitio Bayabo at 6:00 p.m. on
December 12, 1992 and again at 8:00 a.m. of December 13,
1992. He also testified that to go to the Centro (the town
center of Tumauini) from Camasi, one has to go to
Cumabao and take a jeep there to the Centro. In 1992,
there were only three passenger vehicles plying Cumabao
to Centro and the last trip was at around 4:00 p.m.
As rebuttal, the prosecution presented SPO4 ROMEO
TUMOLVA who swore that he personally knows the
petitioner as he is a “compadre” of the petitioner’s parents.
He testified seeing the petitioner along the fenced area of
the Community Center at the night of the incident. 4
On July 7, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment, the
decretal portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment finding the

accused Joey Guiyab GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 249 of
the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of prision mayor medium to reclusion
temporal minimum or from eight (8) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, to pay the Heirs of
Rafael Bacani P50,000.00 as death indemnity, plus P30,000.00 for
actual damages and P18,000.00 for funeral expenses, without
subsidiary imprisonment
5
in case of insolvency. Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED.”

The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals. The

appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision and
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner now comes before us raising the following
issues:

_______________

4 Rollo, pp. 25-31.

5 Id., at p. 31.

537

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 537

Guiyab vs. People

I.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

WHETHER OR NOT THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER WAS

PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO CONVICT HIM
OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED AS

THE ASSAILANT
6
WAS FULLY ESTABLISHED BY THE
PROSECUTION.

The core issue of the present case is whether the guilt of

the petitioner was established beyond reasonable doubt.
We must likewise inquire as to whether the petitioner was
adequately identified.
Petitioner claims that the real identity of the assailant
was not fully established by the prosecution since the lone
eyewitness learned the name of the petitioner only after it
was fed to him by Police Officer Armando Lugo. Petitioner
contends that the identification of the petitioner was
tainted with conjecture and speculation.
The Solicitor General counters that Joseph Madriaga
witnessed the whole incident and positively identified the
petitioner. This is sufficient to convict petitioner.
We have carefully examined the records and find
nothing in them that supports petitioner’s claim that his
identification was tainted with conjectures and speculation.
Our review of the transcript shows that Joseph Madriaga
testified in a categorical and straightforward manner on
the events leading to the death of Rafael Bacani. We quote:

Q: Do you know Joey Guiyab?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Tell the Court why you know him?
A: I know him to be a resident of San Vicente and I often
see his face.

_______________

6 Id., at p. 14.

538

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Guiyab vs. People

Q: If Joey Guiyab is in Court, could you point him?

A: Yes, sir.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

Q: Please point to him.

Court Interpreter:
  Witness pointing to a person who when asked gave his
name as Joey Guiyab.
  ...
Q: After Juan Sanchez hit you with (sic) Rafael Bacani
with one single kick, what did you do?
A: Because we were surprised by the kick of Juan Sanchez
we acted by preparing our fists to fight back but this
Joey Guiyab took his knife and said in the Ibanag
dialect “Pureban nu ta inanna nu” which means you try
and you will see.
Q: After Joey Guiyab brought out a knife and said to you,
you try and you will see, what happened next?
A: I moved back and jumped over the fence.
Q: Will you please tell the Honorable Court why you
jumped over the fence?
A: Because Joey Guiyab is trying to attack me with his
balisong.
Q: While (sic) you jumped over the fence what happened
next?
A: After jumping over the fence, I picked up a stone and
when I saw Juan Sanchez I hit him with a stone.
Q: When you went over that fence, where was Rafael
Bacani?
A: He ran inside the premises.
Q: After you hit Juan Sanchez with a stone what
happened next?
A: Then Joey Guiyab chased me.
Q: Did he overtake you when he chased you?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, when he was not able to overtake you, what did
he do?

539

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 539

Guiyab vs. People

A: Because he was not able to chase me he was able to get

hold of Rafael Bacani and that was the time he stabbed
him.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

Q: When Joey Guiyab stabbed Rafael Bacani was Rafael

Bacani hit?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What part of his body?
A: Here, sir.
Court Interpreter:
  Witness pointing to a portion of his right chest near the
nipple.
  ...
Q: When Rafael Bacani was hit and stabbed with a knife,
how far were you?
A: Five (5) meters.
  ...
Q: You saw the accused stabbed (sic) Rafael Bacani, is it
not?
7
A: Yes, sir.

As a rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the

judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility
of a witness, unless there appears in the record some fact
or circumstance of weight and influence which has been
overlooked, or the significance of 8
which has been
misinterpreted or misapprehended. That general rule
holds true in this case.
We do not doubt Joseph’s identification of Joey Guiyab.
Even if he did not know the name of the petitioner prior to
the incident, he was able to identify him in open court.
Besides, Joseph maintained that although he did not9 know
the name of the petitioner, he knew him by his face. There
is nothing in law or jurisprudence which requires, as a
condition sine qua

_______________

7 TSN, 11 May 1993, pp. 15, 19-23 (Joseph Madriaga).

8 People v. Federico, G.R. No. 146956, 25 July 2003, 407 SCRA 290, 296.
9 Supra, note 7 at pp. 40-42.

540

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Guiyab vs. People

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

non, that, for a positive identification of a felon by a

prosecution witness to10be good, the witness must first know
the former personally. The witness need not have to know
the name
11
of the accused for so long as he recognizes his
face. We ruled that “knowing the identity of an accused is
different from knowing his name. Hence, the positive
identification of the malefactor should not be disregarded
just because his name was supplied to the eyewitness. The
weight of the eyewitness account is premised on the fact
that the said witness saw the accused12
commit the crime,
and not because he knew his name.”
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision
dated September 27, 2001 and the Resolution dated
February 26, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 23703, which sustained the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court, finding petitioner JOEY GUIYAB guilty of
Homicide and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal
minimum or from eight (8) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, and to PAY the
heirs of Rafael Bacani P50,000.00 as death indemnity, plus
P30,000.00 for actual damages and P18,000.00 for funeral
expenses, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, are AFFIRMED.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Ynares-Santiago,

Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

_______________

10 People v. Barreta, G.R. No. 120367, 16 October 2000, 343 SCRA 199,
208.
11 People v. Vaynaco, G.R. No. 126286, 22 March 1999, 305 SCRA 93,
100.
12 People v. Agsunod, Jr., G.R. No. 118331, 3 May 1991, 306 SCRA 612,
622.

541

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 20, 2005 541

Heavylift Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Notes.—Factual findings and conclusions of trial courts

are entitled to great weight and are not disturbed on
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

appeal. (People vs. Daquipil, 240 SCRA 314 [1995])

An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for
review and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to
correct any error, as may be found in the appealed
judgment, whether assigned as an error or not. (People vs.
Balacano, 336 SCRA 615 [2000])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70097e20ad14babd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9