THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236742. April 16, 2018.]
XANDER AXEL ALTOVEROS y VILLENA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 16, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236742 (Xander Axel Altoveros y Villena vs. People of the Philippines). — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed June 29, 2017 Decision and January 15, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 38649, which affirmed the April 25, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), finding Xander Axel Altoveros guilty beyond reasonable doubt of act of violence under paragraph (h), Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9262 or The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
The RTC and the CA are correct in finding that all the elements of the crime of violence against women are present in this case. Altoveros' act of sending invective text messages to AAA, who was then 16 years old, without a doubt, caused substantial emotional and psychological distress to her, as follows:
Ipaparape kita sa bata ko, papatayin kita at ang pamilya mo, susunugin ko ang bahay nyo. x x x Tang ina ikaw, usapan n d ba putang ina mo! Last muna to, pag hindi ka pumunta dito huling araw nyo na to lahat kau, ako na bahala pabalik mo. Tang ina mo papatayin ko na kau pag di ka pumunta dito. Niloloko mo ba ako? Huh pag d k pumunta dto ayoko na magsalita gagawin nlang namen. Ge putang ina mo. Tang ina mo gago ka! Handa muna sarili mu myang gabi. 1
This conclusion was correctly reached by both courts by looking into the testimonies of AAA herself and Legaspi, her best friend.
Further, Altovero's defenses of denial and alibi that the text messages were not from him because he lost his cell phone should be looked at with disfavor. Alibi is an inherently weak defense. Unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, it cannot prevail over the positive declaration of a victim who, in a natural and straightforward manner, convincingly identifies her assailant. Positive identification, where consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial. On the other hand, denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law. 2
WHEREFORE, the assailed CA Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 69-70.
2.People v. Bitancor, G.R. No. 147968, December 4, 2002.