People v. Temblor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Vicente Temblor alias "Ronald," was charged with murder for shooting Julius Cagampang to death on the evening of December 30, 1980, in Talo-ao, Buenavista, Agusan del Norte. The information alleged that the accused, conspiring with another who was at large, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with treachery and intent to kill, attacked and shot Julius Cagampang with a firearm, inflicting mortal wounds that caused his instantaneous death. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City convicted him of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in (1) finding that he was positively identified as the killer of Julius Cagampang, and (2) rejecting his defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused was positively identified as the killer of the deceased Julius Cagampang. Whether the accused's defense of alibi was validly rejected, and whether the lack of proven motive impacts the case.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects, except that the civil indemnity payable to the heirs of Julius Cagampang is increased to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of positive identification: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the accused was positively identified. The settled rule is that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is generally binding on the appellate court. The victim's widow, Victorina, positively identified the accused, recognizing him from less than a meter away in a well-lighted store. Her testimony was corroborated by a tricycle driver, Claudio Sabanal, who knew the accused as "Ronald" and saw him at the scene of the crime around the time of the incident. Minor inconsistencies in the widow's testimony did not diminish her credibility, as her account was credible, probable, and in accord with human experience. The accused's contention that the widow did not know him by name was overcome by her positive identification during the trial. On the issue of rejecting the alibi and the alleged lack of motive: The Court rejected the accused's defense of alibi. For an alibi to be acceptable, it must be demonstrated beyond doubt that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. In this case, the house where the accused claimed to be was accessible to the crime scene by jeep or tricycle in a short period (15-20 minutes). Furthermore, the accused's alibi was contradicted by documentary evidence showing that Silverio Perol, a witness for the alibi, was at work during the time the accused claimed they were drinking together. The accused failed to overcome this rebuttal evidence. His self-serving and uncorroborated alibi could not prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses. The Court noted that the trial court considered the accused's knowledge that the victim possessed a firearm as sufficient motive, citing the NPA's "agaw armas" campaign. However, the Court reiterated that proof of motive is not essential when the culprit has been positively identified. The accused's flight after the killing and subsequent hiding in the mountains served as an implied admission of guilt, further weakening his defense.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by the victim's widow, corroborated by another witness, is sufficient to overcome a self-serving and uncorroborated alibi, especially when the physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene of the crime is not established. Flight of the accused after the commission of the crime is an implied admission of guilt. Proof of motive is not essential when the culprit has been positively identified.