People v. Naba-unag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of October 30, 1965, two separate incidents of robbery occurred. In the first incident (Criminal Case No. 7215), Andres Naba-unag and Placido Naba-unag forcibly entered the house of Felipe Mabangue and Catalina Mabansag. Andres demanded money, and upon compliance, stabbed Catalina. Both Andres and Placido then repeatedly stabbed Felipe Mabangue until he died, after which they fled. In the second incident (Criminal Case No. 7227), Placido Naba-unag, Bienvenido Daclag, and Luis Cabural forcibly entered the house of Victor Mabangue and Felisa Mabangue. Placido stabbed Felisa, then demanded money. Felisa, fearing for her life, gave them P200.00. They then fled. Victor Mabangue, who had initially fled, returned to find his wife wounded and their money stolen. The victims of the first incident were Felipe Mabangue (deceased) and Catalina Mabansag (wounded). The victim of the second incident was Felisa Mabangue (wounded), and the stolen amount was P200.00. Procedural History: Placido Naba-unag and Andres Naba-unag were charged with robbery with homicide and physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 7215. Placido Naba-unag, Bienvenido Daclag, and Luis Cabural were charged with robbery in Criminal Case No. 7227. Andres Naba-unag pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Placido Naba-unag pleaded not guilty in both cases. Luis Cabural pleaded not guilty in Criminal Case No. 7227. Bienvenido Daclag remained at large. A joint trial was conducted. The trial court convicted Placido Naba-unag in both cases and acquitted Luis Cabural in Criminal Case No. 7227. The Petition: Placido Naba-unag appealed his conviction, assailing the trial court's rejection of his alibi, conviction based on uncorroborated testimonies, disregard of his co-accused's testimony, and finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal through conspiracy.
Issue(s)
Did the trial court err in not giving credence to the accused-appellant's defense of alibi? Did the trial court err in convicting the accused-appellant in both cases merely on the uncorroborated testimonies of Catalina Mabansag and Felisa Mabangue? Did the trial court err in disregarding entirely the testimony of Andres Naba-unag, the accused-appellant's brother and co-accused? Did the trial court err in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal through conspiracy in both cases?
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Placido Naba-unag in Criminal Case No. 7215 and modified the penalty to death. In Criminal Case No. 7227, the Court affirmed the conviction and modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to 10 years of prision mayor. The indemnity for the heirs of Felipe Mabangue was increased to P12,020.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found the appellant's defense of alibi untenable. It emphasized that for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. The appellant's claim of being two kilometers away harvesting palay did not meet this stringent requirement, as the distance does not preclude the possibility of his presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the appellant's alibi was contradicted by the positive identification of the witnesses who had known him since childhood and whose houses were barely 100 meters apart, reinforcing the principle that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. The Court also noted the weakness of the alibi due to the appellant's failure to present corroborating witnesses he mentioned, which proved fatal to his defense. On Issue 2: The Court rejected the appellant's contention that his conviction rested merely on uncorroborated testimonies. It held that in the determination of the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, meaning that the testimony of a single credible witness can be sufficient for conviction. The Court found the testimonies of Catalina Mabansag and Felisa Mabangue to be credible, trustworthy, and reliable, given their positive identification of the appellant whom they knew well. The Court dismissed the appellant's assertion of motive for false testimony, finding the alleged feud between families too fragile to be believed in light of the clear identification. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's argument that the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of his brother, Andres Naba-unag. The Court noted that if Andres Naba-unag truly intended to admit sole commission of the crimes, he could have done so when he entered his plea of guilty. It concluded that his testimony was obviously a vain attempt to save his brother, the appellant, from punishment, and thus was unworthy of any weight and credence. The Court further noted that the appellant's flight from the scene of the crime was inconsistent with his claim of innocence. On Issue 4: Although not explicitly addressed as a separate point, the Court's affirmation of the conviction implies agreement with the trial court's finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt as principal through conspiracy. The Court's finding that the appellant actively participated in both robberies, including the fatal stabbing of Felipe Mabangue and the wounding of Felisa Mabangue, clearly establishes his culpability. The Court applied the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling to both crimes, which further solidified the basis for imposing the maximum penalties. The collective actions of Placido and Andres in killing Felipe, and Placido and Bienvenido in robbing Victor and Felisa, demonstrated a common design and conspiracy.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi must demonstrate not only that the accused was elsewhere but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Positive identification by credible witnesses who know the accused outweighs a weak alibi. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling are considered in imposing the penalty.