People v. Jabeguero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 24, 1975, Valentin Niedo was walking along a street when Bartolome Jabeguero, from the window of his house, fired a shotgun at Valentin, hitting him in the face, neck, and chest with pellets. Valentin's sister, Dominga Niedo Orral, witnessed the shooting. Miguel Jabeguero and Sofronio Latorre were also present near Bartolome. After the shot, the three fled towards the seashore. Valentin, when asked by Barangay Councilman Ernesto Balasbas who shot him, identified Bartolome Jabeguero. Valentin died en route to the hospital. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Samar convicted Bartolome Jabeguero of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, indemnification, and costs. His co-accused, Miguel Jabeguero and Sofronio Latorre, were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Petition: Bartolome Jabeguero appealed, arguing that the lower court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, which he claimed were biased, improbable, and contrary to physical facts, and in convicting him.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of murder qualified by treachery.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the lower court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses: The Court found no error in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies. Dominga Niedo Orral positively identified Bartolome Jabeguero as the assailant. Despite being the victim's sister, her testimony was given full faith and credit as there was no showing of improper motive. The Court reiterated the rule that the relationship of a witness to the victim does not discredit the testimony, especially when it is clear and positive. Furthermore, the victim's dying declaration to Ernesto Balasbas, identifying "Tome Jabuego" (Bartolome Jabeguero) as the shooter, was admitted as evidence. The medical examiner confirmed that the victim could still talk after sustaining the wounds, supporting the admissibility of the dying declaration. The appellant's defense of alibi was also negated by the prosecution's evidence, including the observation that the appellant went into hiding after the incident, which is considered conduct incompatible with innocence and indicative of guilt. On whether the appellant was correctly convicted of murder qualified by treachery: The Court affirmed the conviction for murder qualified by treachery. The eyewitness, Dominga Niedo Orral, testified that Bartolome Jabeguero fired at Valentin Niedo while the latter was walking on the street, and Bartolome was inside his house by the window. This manner of attack, from a concealed position (inside the house by the window) against an unsuspecting victim walking on the street, demonstrates treachery, as it ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant arising from the defense the victim might have made. The medical findings regarding the wounds were consistent with the prosecution's account, and the victim's dying declaration further corroborated the identity of the assailant and the circumstances of the attack. The appellant's attempt to elude authorities after the incident further strengthened the inference of guilt.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by an eyewitness, coupled with the victim's dying declaration and the accused's flight, negates the defense of alibi and establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The relationship of the witness to the victim does not discredit the testimony absent any showing of improper motive.