People v. Duero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the evening of November 24, 1981, Alfonso Magabili was stabbed to death under the house of Alberto Duero. He sustained a fatal stab wound at the back. The injury was caused by a sharp-edged instrument. Procedural History: The accused, Antinomenes Duero, was charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur. He was found guilty and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) found the appellant guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua, and certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused appealed his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the defense of alibi is tenable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the IAC. It declared the appellant guilty of homicide, not murder, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery: The Court held that treachery cannot be appreciated against the appellant. The prosecution failed to present any eyewitness to the stabbing incident, and the record was bereft of evidence as to the means or method employed by the appellant in attacking the victim. Treachery cannot be deduced from mere presumption or speculation. Therefore, absent any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is homicide, not murder. The Court cited P. v. Torejas and P. v. Lansa in support of this principle. On the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence: The Court affirmed the IAC's finding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that the victim was stabbed shortly after going downstairs, and eyewitnesses Juliano Cuahao and Segundiano Miranda saw the appellant running away from the scene holding a bolo. Cuahao identified the appellant's clothing, and Miranda recognized him due to a flashlight. Furthermore, Alberto Duero surrendered the bolo used in the assault. The Court reiterated the rule that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt, as provided in Section 5 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. On the tenability of the defense of alibi: The Court rejected the appellant's defense of alibi. The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified the appellant to be more credible than the alibi presented, especially considering the appellant's proximity to the scene of the crime and the biased nature of the testimonies of his father and grandmother. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that alibi is a weak defense that cannot be sustained when the accused has been positively identified as the assailant, citing several cases including People v. Ismael and People v. Amit.
Main Doctrine
Treachery cannot be presumed and requires proof of the means or method used in the attack; absent such proof, the crime is homicide, not murder.