ORLANDO PRIMERO, Petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondents.

G.R. No. L-48468-69 November 22, 1989

Luis R. Reyes for petitioner.

PARAS, J.:

Before the then Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Orlando Primero was charged with the
crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness and Illegal Possession of Deadly
Weapon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The complaint for Acts of Lasciviousness reads:

That on or about 5:30 P.M., November 12,1975 in the municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac,
the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, while armed
with a deadly weapon (bayonet) and by means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs
committed lascivious acts upon the person of the undersigned complainant at Brgy. Pindangan
2nd, Camiling Tarlac by then and there embracing, touching and fondling the breast and private
parts of the undersigned against the complainants' will.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library

CONTRARY TO LAW.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Camiling Tarlac. (Decision, pp. 28-29, Rollo)

While the Provincial Fiscal, filed an Information for Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon, to wit:

That on or about November 12, 1975, at about 5:30 in the afternoon, at Barangay Pindangan
2nd, in the Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said Orlando Primero did then and there Willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously carry outside of his residence a deadly weapon, to wit: a bayonet, 19-1/2" long, which
was not then being used as a necessary tool or implement to earn a living or being used in
connection therewith, but was used in the commission of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness for
which he was charged in Crim. Case No. 1184 of this Honorable
Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Contrary to Law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Tarlac, Tarlac, February 19, 1976. (p. 29, Rollo)

The evidence for the prosecution, as found by the respondent appellate Court is as follows:

During the time material to this case Angelita Maycong was about 24 years old, single and a
resident of Pindangan II, Camiling, Tarlac (p. 16, tsn., August
5,1976).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On or about November 12, 1975, on their way home from Tarlac where they joined a parade (p.
30, tsn., August 30, 1976), Angelita Maycong and one Elena Garcia saw Orlando Primero emerge
suddenly from the talahib along their path, brandishing a bayonet at them (p. 17, tsn., August 5,
1976). Elena Garcia ran away (p. 6, tsn., August 30,1976). Angelita Maycong descended on the
'pilapil' to her left side and also tried to run away (p. 18, tsn, August 5, 1976). Unfortunately,
Angelita stumbled, as a result of which, Orlando grabbed her and pinned her down on the ground
(Ibid), He held her neck with his right hand and held her breasts with the left hand and kissed
her right cheek (pp. 19, 20, tsn., August 5,1976). Fighting back, she kicked Orlando near his
organ and struck him with left hand (p. 20, Ibid.; p. 27, tsn., August 5,1976). In the struggle,
Angelita was able to get the bayonet (p. 2, Ibid).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library

In the meantime, Elena Garcia shouted for help (p. 20, tsn., August 5, 1976). Angelita also
shouted for help (p. 20, Ibid).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Upon seeing the bayonet in the possession of Angelita, Orlando Primero ran away (p. 23, tsn.,
August 5, 1976). Not long after, the father of Angelita Maycong, who was then tending his farm
from where he heard the shouts for help, arrived (Ibid). Having teamed of the attempt made on
the honor of her daughter, father and daughter reported the matter to the Barrio Captain (Ibid).
The bayonet was surrendered to the police force of Camiling, Tarlac. (pp. 3-5, Solicitor's Brief)
(Decision, p. 10, Rollo).

The defendant, in turn, claims that the filing of these two (2) criminal accusations was motivated
by revenge. He testified that he and the complainant were sweethearts who were engaged to get
married. He lived in the house of the complainant for three (3) months where he was practically
treated by the father of the complainant, Florentino Maycong, as a son-in-law helping in the farm
work and in the daily chores in the house. However, the planned marriage did not take place
because the complainant's family wanted an ostentations ceremony which he (defendant) could
not afford. As an alternative, defendant suggested to complainant that they elope but the latter
refused. Subsequently, the defendant left the complainant and married another woman, a
decision which was allegedly resented by the complainant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library

Furthermore, defendant raises the defense of alibi. It is argued that at the time the incident was
allegedly committed, he was in Paniqui, Tarlac harvesting palay with some other farm laborers.
He maintained that he worked there from 6 o'clock in the morning to past 6 o'clock in the evening
of November 12, 1975. The foregoing testimony of the defendant was corroborated by Cipriano
Sudaria and Teodoro Cayabyab.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
After trial, the lower court convicted the defendant of the two (2) offenses charged in the two (2)
separate informations and sentenced him as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Orlando Primero guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case
No. I 1 84 of the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness punishable under Article 336 of the Revised
Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to a term of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE
(1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, medium period, and
in Crim. Case No. 1195 on the charge of Illegal Possession of a Deadly Weapon, punishable under
PD 9, he is further sentenced to a prison term of TEN (10) YEARS which is the maximum term
imposed by the law, with cost.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The bayonet, Exh. A, is ordered confiscated and once this decision becomes final, the same shall
be forwarded to the 184th PC Company, Paniqui, Tarlac for disposition according to law. (p. 12,
Rollo)

On appeal, the respondent Court rendered a decision, * the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, affirming the judgment of conviction in both offenses but modifying the penalty
imposed by the lower court, We hereby sentence the defendant to the following:chanrobles virtual
law library

1. As regards to the accusation of acts of lasciviousness the defendant is hereby sentenced to a

2. As regards the violation of Presidential Decree No. 9 the defendant is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of Five (5) Years as minimum to Ten (10) Years as maximum. The bayonet,
Exhibit A is ordered confiscated in favor of the government. (pp. 1516, Rollo)

Hence, this petition raising the following issues:

Ichanrobles virtual law library

The respondent Court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

IIchanrobles virtual law library

The respondent Court failed to pass upon the contention that bayonet is not one of the weapons
the carrying of which outside one's residence is punished under Section 3 of Presidential Decree
No. 9.

IIIchanrobles virtual law library

The respondent Court erred in its non-consideration of the defense of alibi interposed by the
defendant.

After a careful perusal of the entire record of this case, We find no cogent reason to disturb the
findings of the respondent Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
With regard to the issue of credibility, We cannot acquiesce with the argument raised by the
petitioner that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, being close relatives, (father and
niece) of the complainant, should not be given weight and should be considered biased and self-
serving. Be it remembered that mere relations cannot militate against the credibility of a witness.
Neither could it distort the testimony due from such witnesses. In point is the ruling in the case
of People v. Libed reported in 14 SCRA 410:

The fact alone of relationship to the victim does not destroy a witness' credibility. It is not to be
lightly supposed that the relatives of the deceased would callously violate their conscience ... by
blaming it on persons whom they know to be innocent thereof.

In this regard, it is relevant to restate herein that the trial court, which had the opportunity of
observing the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses, found the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses to have the hallmarks of truth and credibility. Thus, the trial court
pertinently observed:

The Court is inclined to believe the claim of the complainant. Angelita Maycong, her father
Florentino Maycong, and her companion Elena Garcia, appear to be credible witnesses. They
impressed the Court as being innocent farm folks, and while appearance may be deceiving, their
story is not incredible and was entirely believable, Being an unmarried woman and in the prime
of her maidenhood (she was 25 years of age when she testified on August 5,1976), what reason
would Angelita have for unnecessarily exposing herself if indeed the story of the accused violating
her honor was not true. Her story was corroborated in material aspects by the two other
witnesses, her companion Elena Garcia and her father Florentino Maycong. (Decision, p. 12 Rollo)

Accordingly, it need not be emphasized that the trial court's finding that the testimonies of the
witnesses were reliable, being supported by evidence of record, should be given credence. Thus,
on matters of credibility the findings of the trial court are accorded the highest respect (People
v. Cabanit, 139 SCRA 94; People v. Jones, 137 SCRA 166; People v. Canamo, 138 SCRA 141;
People v. Pasco, Jr., 137 SCRA 137; Guita v. CA, 139 SCRA
576).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Anent the second issue, We regret to say that the same is bereft of merit. It is worth noting that
the dispositive portion of the respondent Court's decision makes mention of violation by the
petitioner of P.D. No. 9 for which he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of five (5) years
as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and wherein the bayonet was ordered confiscated in
favor of the government. It goes without saying that the Court of Appeals would not have
sustained the trial court's finding of petitioner's guilt as to the charge of illegal possession of
deadly weapon were it not convinced that a bayonet is a "bladed, pointed or blunt weapon"
decreed unlawful under P.D. No. 9.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It can not be disputed that, ordinarily, the enumeration of specified matters in a statute is
construed as an exclusion of matters not enumerated unless a different intention appears.
However, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is only an auxiliary rule of statutory
construction. It is not of universal application-neither is it conclusive. It should be applied only as
a means of discovering legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature (Statutory Construction,
Martin, sixth edition, 1984, pp. 71-72). Where a statute appears on its face to limit the operation
of its provisions to particular persons or things by enumerating them, but no reason exists why
other ... things not so enumerated should not have been included, and manifest injustice will
follow by not so including them, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius should not be
invoked (Ibid, p. 79). Applying the same in the instant case, it cannot be convincingly argued that
a bayonet is not a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon, possession of which outside of one's residence
is decreed by P.D. No. 9 to be illegal. True enough, if the carrying outside one's residence of such
weapons as fan knife, "balisong" or club, which are less deadly than the bayonet, are prohibited
under the law, there is no logical reason why the bayonet should be exempted from the
prohibition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Finally, as regards the defense of alibi, not only is it a weak defense but also it cannot prevail
over the positive Identification of the accused and by credible prosecution witnesses (People v.
Obenque, 147 SCRA 448; People v. Pacada, Jr., 142 SCRA 427; People v. Canturia, 139 SCRA
280). Moreover, defendant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the incident.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs
against petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), J., is on leave.