#15 MADALI V PEOPLE Jovencio change his story twice, but there were major discrepancies in
G.R. No. 180380 August 4, 2009 the details contained in the first and the third affidavit.
Topic: RULES ON COMMITMENT OF CHILDRAN & RULE ON JUVENILES
IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
Petitioner: RAYMUND MADALI and RODEL MADALI
Respondent: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Ponente: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
FACTS:
Raymund Madali, 14 years old, and Rodel Madali, 16 years old, along
with a Bernardino “Jojo’ Maestro were charged with the murder of AAA,
a minor. The information stated the accused struck AAA with a coconut
frond and a llave inglesia (wrench). Then they strangled AAA with a dog
chain and hung him up a tree which ultimately cause AAA’s death. On
arraignment, they pleaded not guilty.
Eight witnesses were procured by the prosecution. Jovencio, an
eyewitness, executed an affidavit of his testimony which positively
identified the petitioners as the perpetrators. But because a certain
Wilson threatened him, Jovencio executed a second affidavit which, in
effect, repudiates the first. However, he executed his third and final
affidavit affirming the first. He testified in court, but the accused
interposed the defense of denial coupled with an alibi.
The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of homicide
(because premeditation wasn’t proven) with appreciation of minority as
a mitigating circumstance. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision but
with modification, holding that Raymund is exempted from criminal
liability because he was below the age of 15 when the crime was
committed. Raymund’s case was dismissed while Rodel’s conviction was
sustained. This was pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006.
In this case, the petitioners are assailing Jovencio’s testimony because it
was replete and patent with substantial inconsistencies. Not only did
ISSUE:
1. Is Jovencio still considered a credible witness despite changing
his affidavits twice? YES
2. Was Jovencio’s credibility affected by virtue of changing his
affidavits? NO
RULING:
Against the evidence presented by the prosecution, the petitioners could
only muster a mere denial. Their defense was much too flaccid to stand
firm against the evidence presented by the prosecution. Denial, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-
serving evidence that deserves no weight in law. Thus, it cannot be given
greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who
testifies on affirmative matters. Between the self-serving testimonies of
petitioners and the positive identification by the eyewitness, the latter
deserves greater credence.
Furthermore, petitioners’ alibi, which was supported by the testimonies
of close relatives and friends, cannot overcome the convincing evidence
adduced by the prosecution. Such corroborative testimonies of relatives
and friends are viewed with suspicion and skepticism by the Court. Their
alibi did not prosper because two elements did not concur: 1.) the
accused was in another place the time was committed; and 2.) it was
physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime the
time it was committed.
Moreover, the affidavit of recantation executed by a witness prior to trial
cannot prevail over the testimony given during trial. An affidavit of
recantation, being usually taken ex parte, would be considered inferior
to the testimony given in open court. A recantation is exceedingly
unreliable, inasmuch as it is easily secured from a poor and ignorant
witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.
Moreover, Jovencio already explained why he executed the second
affidavit – he was threatened by some guy named Wilson who happened
to be a relative of the petitioners.

Nonetheless, The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 will still
operate to the benefit of Raymund. Rodel is likewise benefitted as he is
entitled to a suspension of sentence. The SC remanded Rodel’s case to
the cour a quo for further proceedings with respect to civil liabilities.

DOCTRINE/S: