PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

VICENTE BASQUEZ y MANZANO

G.R. No. 144035 | September 21, 2001
Panganiban, J.

Doctrines:
1. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was somewhere else
when the crime was committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.
2. Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the
part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the appellant's defense of
denial and alibi. The latter must present clear and convincing proof to prove his case.

FACTS
The present case is an appeal filed by Vicente Basquez (“Basquez”), assailing the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City Branch 17 which convicted him of the crime
of Rape pursuant to Art.335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 and sentenced
him to a penalty of reclusion perpetua and all other accessory penalties. It was alleged in the
information filed against Basquez that he, by employing force and intimidation, engaged in
carnal knowledge with the complainant Jiggle dela Cerna (“Jiggle”), who is then 7 years old,
against her will. The prosecution and the defense presented two different version of the facts.
The prosecution contends that Jiggle was on her way home from school when she was
stopped by Basquez who was then drinking outside a store. The latter then pulled Jiggle by the
belt of her dress, dragged her inside an unoccupied house and then proceeded to tie her hands,
feet and body. Basquez then proceeded in raping Jiggle, who was unable to defend herself. After
consummating the act, Basquez left Jiggle to her own devices. Traumatized by what happened to
her, she refused to go back to school and narrated the horrifying story to her grandmother who
then reported it to the police. Jiggle was subjected to a medical examination which corroborated
the fact that she was raped.
On the other hand, the defense contends that Basquez was not present where the crime
happened because he was allegedly in a vulcanizing shop helping to butcher and roast a pig. This
was followed by a party that lasted until the following day. To his surprise, he was invited by the
police to go to the police station and was required to sit down without the assistance of a counsel.
The defense also contends that Jiggle was asked to identify if it was really Basquez who raped
her and the former answered no. Despite this, he was still detained.
On appeal, appellant Basquez contends that the trial court erred in convicting him based
on the grounds of alleged bias and partiality of the trial judge, partiality of the witness and error
in the description of the accused.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N there was a violation of the procedural due process because there was evident bias
and partiality on the part of the trial judge- NO.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 Appellant Basquez insists that there was evident partiality because the judge went
to unjustifiable lengths in examining the witnesses presented by the defense to the benefit
of the prosecution. However, the Court held that this contention was devoid of any merit.
The participation of judges is not prohibited when proper and necessary. Judges may ask
questions to clarify points, elicit additional relevant evidences, ask clarificatory
questions, examine and cross-examine the witnesses or even intervene in the presentation
of evidence to prevent waste of time. In the present case, it was clear that the only object
of the trial judge was to assess the truthfulness of the facts presented. His inquisitiveness
did not hamper the rights of the accused.

2. W/N there was a violation of the procedural due process because there was partiality on
the part of the prosecution’s witness- NO.

In this assignment of error, appellant argues that the court erred in dismissing and
declaring as bias the testimony of a witness of the prosecution which favored the defense.
Notwithstanding this, the court dismissed this contention and held that the task of
assigning values to the testimonies of the witnesses and weighing their credibility is best
left to the trail court. It was evident that the alleged witnessed evade in answering
material questions and there was the intention to aid the defense.

3. W/N there was a violation of the procedural due process because there was an error in the
description of the accused. - NO.

Appellant now assails the description of the victim of her rapist and belies that the
characteristics mentioned pertain to him. However, the Court held that the fact
that his appearance differs from the description given by the victim does not
necessarily affect his credibility as a witness. The alleged discrepancies were just
minor details. More importantly, the victim identified the appellant not just during
the police investigation but also during the trial. The delay and the initial denial
was also not given any credit by the court, taking into consideration the state of
the victim when the said identification happened.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. We AFFIRM the assailed Decision finding VICENTE
M. BASQUEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto and another P50,000 as
moral damages. Costs against appellant.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2