People v. De Paz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 13, 1983, Floro Florendo was allegedly attacked and killed by Jovencio de Paz, Silverio Mijares, Jr., and Telesforo Almaden in Barangay Salvador, Tanauan, Leyte. The information alleged that the accused conspired, confederated, took advantage of superior strength, and acted with treachery in attacking the victim with deadly weapons, inflicting multiple incised wounds that caused his death. Procedural History: An information for Murder was filed against Mijares, Almaden, and De Paz. Mijares was arrested, pleaded guilty to homicide, and was convicted. De Paz was arrested later, pleaded not guilty, and was tried. The Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, Branch VIII, found Jovencio de Paz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, to indemnify the heirs of Floro Florendo in the amount of P30,000.00, and to pay costs. The Petition: Accused-appellant Jovencio de Paz appealed the decision of the trial court, arguing that the court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in convicting him despite his defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Anacorita and Myrna Florendo. Whether the defense of alibi presented by the accused-appellant is sufficient to acquit him. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the penalty and indemnity. The accused-appellant Jovencio de Paz was found guilty of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The indemnity to the heirs of the victim was increased to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court held that the relationship of the witnesses (wife and daughter of the victim) to the victim does not automatically render their testimonies biased or incredible. Their testimonies were positive, clear, and consistent with the physical evidence, including the autopsy report. The fact that they did not flee the scene but instead cried for help and attempted to defend the victim, despite the danger, further bolstered their credibility. The Court reiterated the rule that relationship alone is not a ground to disregard testimony absent proof of improper motive. The witnesses knew the accused-appellant as they were all residents of the same barangay, thus, misidentification was unlikely. The Court found no evidence that the witnesses were actuated by improper motives to falsely implicate the accused. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi to be weak and unconvincing, especially in light of the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasized that for alibi to be credible, the accused must not only show presence elsewhere but also physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The accused-appellant's alibi was corroborated by a defense witness whose testimony was found to be unreliable due to his poor eyesight and lack of a timepiece, making his estimation of time questionable. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused admitted to a dispute between his father and the victim, suggesting a motive for his participation. The Court also pointed out that the timeline presented by the defense allowed for the possibility that the accused could have committed the crime and still caught his Manila-bound vessel. On the penalty and indemnity: The Court found that the crime committed was Murder qualified by treachery. The penalty prescribed for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The Court ruled that the Indeterminate Sentence Law was not applicable as there were no generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the death indemnity to P50,000.00, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses, even if they are relatives of the victim, prevails over the defense of alibi, especially when the latter is not substantiated by proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. The penalty for murder qualified by treachery is reclusion perpetua, and the death indemnity should be P50,000.00.