People v. Terante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 7, 1968, at approximately 8:00 PM, four individuals, identified as Demetrio Cabale, Florencio Daniel, Benito Terante (@ "Bodoy"), and Bonifacio Cualteros, arrived at the store of Rufina Rosello, an octogenarian. Two of them, Daniel and Terante, entered the store while Cabale and Cualteros stayed outside, firing shots and issuing threats. Inside, Daniel and Terante demanded money from Rosello, who refused. They then dragged her outside, strangled her to death, and took her "alkansiya" (coin bank). Simultaneously, Ricarido Fernando arrived on his motorcycle. He was ordered to stop, and when he did not, his motorcycle was kicked, causing him to fall. Cabale then ordered Fernando to lie down, searched him, and took P492.00, his wallet, driver's license, motorcycle registration, and coins, after striking his hand with a gun. Fernando was then kicked and "rolled" over, sustaining injuries that incapacitated him for fifteen days. After the incident, the four accused fled on Fernando's motorcycle. A post-mortem examination revealed Rufina Rosello died of asphyxia by strangulation. Florencio Daniel, upon questioning, admitted his participation and identified his companions. Procedural History: Consequently, Cabale, Daniel, Cualteros, and Terante were charged in two separate informations: Robbery in Band with Less Serious Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. R-2894) for the crime against Fernando, and Robbery in Band with Homicide (Criminal Case No. R-2895) for the crime against Rosello. After joint trial, Cabale, Daniel, and Terante were found guilty in both cases. They were sentenced to death in Criminal Case No. R-2895 and to indeterminate penalties in Criminal Case No. R-2894. Bonifacio Cualteros was acquitted of both charges due to reasonable doubt but was ordered to indemnify the victims. Due to the death penalty, the records were forwarded for review. However, with the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty was no longer imposable. Florencio Daniel opted not to pursue his appeal and agreed to serve reclusion perpetua. Demetrio Cabale's judgment became final due to his escape. Thus, only Benito Terante's appeal remained for consideration. The Petition: Benito Terante appealed his conviction, denying participation and asserting alibi. He claimed to be at a copra drier in Barrio Suba, Sogod, Southern Leyte, with Cresencio Dugos from June 7 to June 10, 1968. He also alleged procedural irregularities in his arraignment and questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
Issue(s)
Whether the procedural irregularity in the arraignment of the appellant prejudiced his right to a fair trial. Whether the appellant's defense of alibi was sufficiently proven. Whether the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were credible and sufficient for conviction. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was correctly appreciated. Whether the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased should be increased.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with a modification regarding the indemnity. The appeal of Benito Terante was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural irregularity in arraignment: The Court held that while the arraignment occurred after the cases were submitted for decision, this error was non-prejudicial and was cured. The appellant's counsel participated in the trial without objection, cross-examined prosecution witnesses, and later agreed to adopt all proceedings prior to the arraignment. This cured any violation of the appellant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the appellant's alibi unmeritorious. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere but also that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Terante failed to present corroboration (Cresencio Dugos) and did not prove the impossibility of his presence, given the one-hour time difference between his alleged location and the crime scene. Furthermore, his alibi could not prevail over the positive identification by Ricarido Fernando. On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court gave full weight and credence to the testimony of Ricarido Fernando, who positively identified Benito Terante as one of the perpetrators. The bright moonlight and close proximity provided ample opportunity for identification. The Court found no ill motive for Fernando to testify falsely. Alleged inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies referred to insignificant details, were explained, and did not destroy their credibility. The trial court's findings on witness credibility were given deference. On the aggravating circumstance of nighttime: The Court agreed with the appellant that there was no proof that the accused purposely sought the cover of darkness. However, the penalty imposed was still correct because of the presence of abuse of superior strength, which was not offset by any mitigating circumstance. On the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased: The Court increased the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of Rufina Rosello from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi requires proof not only that the accused was elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Positive identification by a credible witness can prevail over a weak alibi. Procedural irregularities in arraignment, if not prejudicial and are cured during the proceedings, do not invalidate the trial.