People v. Terana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 27, 1966, Teodorico Tizon, Mauro Tizon, and Apolinario Terana were charged with Murder for the death of Honofre Cabaltierra on April 24, 1966. The Information alleged that the accused conspired, confederated, and mutually helped one another with deliberate intent to kill, employing treachery and evident premeditation, and taking advantage of darkness, attacked and shot Honofre Cabaltierra with a homemade shotgun, inflicting eight gunshot wounds on his back, which caused his death. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, Teodorico Tizon pleaded guilty. A hearing was conducted, and he was sentenced to imprisonment and indemnity. Mauro Tizon and Apolinario Terana pleaded not guilty. The trial court, on October 26, 1967, rendered judgment finding Apolinario Terana and Mauro Tizon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing Apolinario Terana to death and Mauro Tizon to cadena perpetua, jointly and severally indemnifying the heirs of the deceased. The Petition: Accused Teodorico Tizon and Mauro Tizon did not appeal. The death sentence on Apolinario Terana was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The records reveal that the victim, Honofre Cabaltierra, and Fructuoso Lamoste were about to leave for Tacloban when they heard a shot. They saw the three accused behind a boulder. Apolinario Terana was holding a shotgun. The three fled. The victim identified his assailants to his wife before he died. A post-mortem examination revealed eight gunshot entrance wounds in the victim's back. Teodorico Tizon and Mauro Tizon, in their written statements, pointed to Apolinario Terana as the one who induced them and shot the victim. However, at the trial, Teodorico Tizon claimed he was the one who shot the victim. Apolinario Terana claimed alibi, stating he was at home. Mauro Tizon also claimed alibi, stating he was on Cornelio Lamante's land attending to his wife. The Supreme Court assessed the evidence, including the positive identification by the victim's wife and Fructuoso Lamoste, and the sworn statements of Teodorico and Mauro Tizon.
Issue(s)
Whether Apolinario Terana was positively identified as the perpetrator of the crime. Whether the alibi of Apolinario Terana and Mauro Tizon should be given credence. Whether the sworn statements of Teodorico Tizon and Mauro Tizon, pointing to Apolinario Terana as the gunwielder, are admissible and credible, despite Teodorico Tizon's recantation during trial. Whether conspiracy was established among the accused. Whether the crime committed was Murder qualified by treachery, and if evident premeditation and nighttime were aggravating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Apolinario Terana for Murder, modifying the penalty to life imprisonment. The Court found that Apolinario Terana was positively identified by the victim's wife and companion. The alibi of Apolinario Terana was not given credence due to the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime and the positive identification. The sworn statements of Teodorico and Mauro Tizon, implicating Apolinario Terana, were given credence as they were made spontaneously and while the facts were fresh in their memory, and served as corroborative evidence. Conspiracy was established, making the act of one the act of all. The crime was qualified by treachery, but evident premeditation and nighttime were absorbed by treachery or not proven. The penalty imposed was life imprisonment, with an increased indemnity.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Apolinario Terana was positively identified as the perpetrator of the crime: The Court held that Apolinario Terana was positively identified by the victim's wife and Fructuoso Lamoste. The widow of the victim knew all three accused since childhood, as did Lamoste. The presence of a bright moon and Fructuoso Lamoste's use of a torch allowed for clear recognition of the assailants. Both witnesses saw Apolinario Terana holding the shotgun immediately after the shot was fired. This positive and direct evidence of identification was deemed sufficient to overcome the defense. On Whether the alibi of Apolinario Terana and Mauro Tizon should be given credence: The Court ruled that the alibi of Apolinario Terana could not prevail over the positive identification. His defense of being 2 kilometers away was not supported by satisfactory evidence showing physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. The Court reiterated that a distance of 1 to 2 kilometers does not exclude the accused from the possibility of committing the crime. Mauro Tizon's alibi was similarly dismissed. On Whether the sworn statements of Teodorico Tizon and Mauro Tizon, pointing to Apolinario Terana as the gunwielder, are admissible and credible, despite Teodorico Tizon's recantation during trial: The Court found the sworn statements credible. These statements were given spontaneously to the PC and police while the facts were fresh in their memory, before they could concoct a story. The Court noted that Teodorico Tizon's recantation during trial, claiming sole authorship, was likely an attempt to save his cousin-in-law, Apolinario Terana, and brother, Mauro Tizon. While these statements were admissible against the declarants, they served as corroborative evidence against Apolinario Terana. On Whether conspiracy was established among the accused: The Court found that conspiracy was established. The sworn statements of Teodorico and Mauro Tizon indicated that Apolinario Terana induced them to carry out the plot to kill the victim, that they hid behind a boulder, and that Apolinario Terana shot the victim. The presence of Teodorico and Mauro Tizon at the scene tended to provide moral assistance and ascendancy to Apolinario Terana, encouraging him to execute the plan. As conspiracy was established, the act of one was considered the act of all. On Whether the crime committed was Murder qualified by treachery, and if evident premeditation and nighttime were aggravating circumstances: The Court held that the crime was Murder qualified by treachery. The accused agreed to execute their pre-planned plot, hid, and shot the unarmed and unsuspecting victim in the back without warning, adopting means to insure themselves from risk. However, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was absorbed by treachery. Dwelling was not considered as it was not purposely sought. Evident premeditation could not be considered as there was no evidence of sufficient time for reflection between the plan and execution. Consequently, with no modifying circumstances, the penalty was imposed in the medium period, which for murder, with treachery, is reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy among the perpetrators of a crime establishes that the act of one is the act of all. Alibi cannot prevail over clear and positive identification. Sworn statements given spontaneously and while facts are fresh in memory deserve credence, even if recanted later, especially when corroborated by other evidence.