People v. Urgel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 23, 1969, at around past 8:00 in the evening, in the poblacion of Javier, Leyte, the deceased Gualberto Guihapon and his wife Honorata Leonor were walking home. The appellant, Fernando Urgel, coming from behind, hacked Gualberto Guihapon with a bolo. When the deceased turned around, the appellant hacked him a second time, hitting him in the face. Gualberto Guihapon fell to the ground and later died. The appellant then walked away. The incident was witnessed by Honorata Leonor, who was about three meters behind her husband. Procedural History: The accused Fernando Urgel was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder by the CFI of Leyte and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant faulted the trial court for giving credence to the testimony of the deceased's wife, relying mainly on the alleged confession, and for not considering the defense witnesses and rejecting the alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the deceased's wife. Whether the trial court erred in relying mainly on the alleged confession of the accused. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the testimony of the defense witnesses and rejecting the defense of alibi. Whether the extra-judicial confession was voluntary and admissible.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, with a modification increasing the indemnity to P30,000.00. The Court found the testimony of the eyewitness credible and the extra-judicial confession admissible and voluntary. The defense of alibi was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of witnesses and the testimony of the deceased's wife: The Supreme Court reiterated that findings of the trial court involving the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect. The delay in the execution of the wife's affidavit was attributed to her traumatic shock and the urgency of burial arrangements. Her lack of schooling and remote residence were also considered. The Court found no reason to doubt her testimony, noting she had no sufficient schooling, could not read or write, and lived in a remote sitio. The fact that the accused was her husband's nephew and that her supposed motive was trivial did not affect her credibility. The Court emphasized that her testimony was given despite her relationship to the victim and that she would not falsely impute the crime if she was not certain. The testimony of a defense witness who saw the assailant run away but did not recognize him was deemed unreliable due to improbabilities and inconsistencies. On the admissibility and voluntariness of the extra-judicial confession: The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court's disbelief of the claim that the confession was not voluntary. The municipal judge testified that the appellant swore to the truthfulness and voluntariness of his confession and did not complain of maltreatment at that time. The appellant also admitted he did not inform his counsel of any maltreatment during the preliminary investigation. His bare allegation of maltreatment was not supported by credible proof, and he failed to sufficiently overcome the presumption of voluntariness. The Court noted that the appellant admitted killing the deceased in his confession. On the defense of alibi: The Supreme Court held that the defense of alibi must yield to positive identification by an eyewitness. The Court found no clear inconsistency between the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's and his witnesses' testimonies and the evidence on record, thus there was a rational basis for rejecting the alibi. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed, and he did not show any improper motive on the part of the witnesses who identified him. The Court cited previous rulings that alibi cannot be sustained if the accused fails to establish the impossibility of his presence at the scene and the witnesses have no improper motive. On the nature of the crime and penalty: The Court affirmed the conviction for murder. The facts indicated that the appellant attacked the deceased from behind and then hacked him again when he turned around, suggesting treachery. However, the trial court found no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and the Supreme Court did not disturb this finding. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed, which is the correct penalty for murder in the absence of modifying circumstances.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi must yield to positive identification by an eyewitness, and a bare allegation of maltreatment in repudiating an extra-judicial confession, unsupported by credible proof, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of voluntariness.