The defense centered its arguments on mere inconsistencies between the sworn statements and testimonies of the witnesses. The arguments raised were speculative rather deliberated, superficial rather substantive and illogical rather rational. The prosecution witnesses have positively, clearly and convincingly identified the accused Romulo Takad as the culprit who took the tricycle, in view of the following reasons:
First, Rule 113, Sec. 2 of the RULES OF EVIDENCE, categorically states that, in a criminal prosecution, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held in People v. Sanchez, “Sworn statement/affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former are often executed when an affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Thus, testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn statements oraffidavits.”
The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses do not eradicate the moral certainty which the witnesses have ascertained during the court proceeding. Undoubtedly, the testimonies of eyewitnesses on material details are straightforward and consistent with each other. Their combined declarations established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of Takad.
Second, when the defense presented the accused as one of its witnesses, the alibi raised by the accused that he was sleeping in their house in the morning of November 21, 2003 when the crime of carnapping happened, must not be given weight. In People vs. Larranaga (G.R. Nos 138874-75), the requirements of time and place must be established by clear and convincing evidence, that is, it was physically impossible to be at the place of the crime. Takad ,may, physically be at the place of the crime as both the new possessor and the accused...