People v. Gutierrez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 29, 1963, Liberato Tabuena sustained multiple fatal wounds in the Municipality of Gandara, Province of Samar. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendants, Sencio Gutierrez, Jose Quirino, and Dondo Cabral, attacked Liberato after an altercation involving their companion, Ely Colili, and Tito Julaton. The defendants allegedly lured Liberato to help them with Ely, then attacked Liberato with bolos while he was tying a hammock. The defense claimed the defendants were at the house of Ildefonso Versoza for three hours after hearing about Ely's injury and that Liberato and Ely were wounded in a free-for-all fight. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Samar found the defendants guilty of murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment, indemnifying the heirs of Liberato Tabuena, and paying costs. The defendants appealed this decision. The Petition: The defendants appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, primarily questioning the identity of the killers.
Issue(s)
Whether the identity of the killers of Liberato Tabuena has been sufficiently established. Whether the crime committed is murder, considering the circumstances of the attack. Whether the lower court erred in denying the motion to reopen the case to present the testimony of Ely Colili. Whether the indemnity awarded is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance with a modification regarding the indemnity. The defendants were found guilty of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment, and ordered to pay increased indemnity to the heirs of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the identity of the killers: The Court found that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the identity of the killers. The witnesses for the prosecution, Prudencio Manoso and Benjamin Tabuena, positively identified the defendants. Their testimonies were corroborated by the number, location, and nature of the wounds sustained by the victim, which were consistent with the use of bolos as described by the witnesses. The fact that the injuries were inflicted in the yard of the deceased, during a moonlit night, and with one of the assailants carrying a torch, provided ample opportunity for recognition. The Court also noted that the defense's theory of an alibi was weak and contradicted by one of the defense witnesses himself. On the crime committed: The Court agreed with the lower court that the crime committed was murder. The victim sustained several wounds, some inflicted from behind, and was attacked simultaneously by the defendants, all armed with bolos, while the victim was unarmed. This established the presence of abuse of superior strength. The Court also considered the possibility of treachery, which would absorb the abuse of superior strength, given the manner of the attack. The Court reiterated that the qualifying circumstances of treachery or abuse of superior strength elevate the crime from homicide to murder. On the denial of the motion to reopen the case: The Court found no error in the denial of the motion to reopen the case for the testimony of Ely Colili. The defense counsel had previously waived the introduction of this testimony, admitting it was merely cumulative. The granting of a new trial is discretionary, and the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, as Ely's testimony was not newly discovered evidence. On the indemnity: The Court modified the indemnity awarded by the lower court. Citing the case of People vs. Pantoja, the indemnity was increased from P6,000 to P12,000, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on damages for death caused by a crime.
Main Doctrine
The crime committed is murder when the accused acted with abuse of superior strength, or treachery, in attacking the victim who was unarmed. The credibility of witnesses who positively identified the assailants, even if related to the victim, is given weight, especially when their testimonies are corroborated by the nature and number of the wounds sustained by the victim.