People v. Ornoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 10, 1977, at around 7:00 PM, Virgilio Bayanin and Jesus Rebistual were at a dance party. Ruben Ornoza approached Rebistual, questioning Virgilio's presence. Later, while walking with a flashlight, Virgilio Bayanin was attacked. Jesus Rebistual witnessed Ruben Ornoza beating Virgilio with a hard object and Mario Ornoza stabbing him. Virgilio Bayanin uttered, "Ano baga ang pagkakasala ko sa inyo, Mario, Ruben, bakit ninyo ako ginaganito?" Rebistual, scared, fled and informed Virgilio's wife. Ernesto Bati, following them, found Virgilio dead and observed head and chest wounds. Efren Bayanin, the deceased's brother, later encountered Ruben and Mario Ornoza, overhearing Mario state, "Siguradong patay na iyon." Efren reported the incident to the police. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Quezon found Ruben Ornoza and Mario Ornoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of Virgilio Bayanin. The court found the crime attended by treachery and evident premeditation, with no mitigating circumstances. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed the decision, raising two assignments of error: (I) the lower court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Jesus Rebistual, and (II) the lower court erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on their weak defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Jesus Rebistual. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on their weak defense of alibi.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity to be paid the heirs of the deceased Virgilio Bayanin is increased from TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) to THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Jesus Rebistual: The Court found no merit in the defense's contention that Rebistual's testimony was incredible. The fact that the police could not locate the accused-appellants did not negate Rebistual's claim of being threatened, as his reluctance to report immediately was natural and common for witnesses. The absence of bananas in the photographs did not detract from his credibility, as the photographs covered a limited area. The argument that Rebistual could not have escaped unharmed if he witnessed the crime was countered by the fact that Ruben Ornoza was aware of Rebistual's presence and the accused-appellants' target was Virgilio Bayanin, not Rebistual. The trial court's observation of Rebistual's demeanor, noting he did not waver despite rigorous cross-examination, further bolstered his credibility. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded the highest respect. On the defense of alibi: The Court held that for alibi to be considered, it must be established that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. In Mario Ornoza's case, his presence in a house within the same barangay, only one kilometer away from his parents' house and the crime scene, did not render his presence at the crime impossible. The trial court's observation that there was no reason for him to sleep elsewhere instead of his own house was noted. For Ruben Ornoza, the distances between the houses involved were not so great as to make his presence at the scene impossible, given that he was at a party only a few hundred meters away. The failure of the accused-appellants to prove physical impossibility was fatal to their defense. Furthermore, alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who clearly identified the accused. The deceased's utterance, "Ano baga ang pagkakasala ko sa inyo, Mario, Ruben, bakit ninyo ako ginaganito?", made under nervous excitement, was considered part of the res gestae and admissible to establish the identity of the assailants. The defense also failed to show any motive for the prosecution witnesses to falsely accuse the appellants, entitling their testimonies to full faith and credit. The trial court also noted that the accused left town immediately and were in hiding, which is an indication of a guilty mind.
Main Doctrine
Alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and their clear identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, especially when the defense fails to prove that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. Flight is an indication of a guilty mind.