People v. Competente
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the fiesta of Barangay Bano, Tiwi, Albay, Nestor Dacir, a Barangay Tanod, was allegedly strangled and stabbed to death by accused-appellants Jesus Competente and Jaime Competente, father and son, who were charged with Murder. Prosecution eyewitnesses testified that the victim's house was stoned, and when the victim went out to investigate, he was lured towards the Competente house. The victim tripped and fell, whereupon Jesus Competente allegedly sat on him and strangled him. Jaime Competente then arrived and stabbed the victim. The victim died upon arrival at the hospital. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Tobacco, Albay convicted the accused-appellants of Murder, sentencing them to suffer reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim. They appealed the verdict. The Petition: The accused-appellants faulted the Trial Court on issues of credibility and the finding that evident premeditation, treachery, and superior strength attended the commission of the offense. They claimed that Feliciano Bacho was the actual culprit.
Issue(s)
Whether the defense of alibi presented by the accused-appellants is credible, and the credibility of prosecution witnesses' testimonies regarding the identification of the assailants and the circumstances of the crime. Whether evident premeditation and treachery attended the commission of the offense. Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the motive for the crime. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the defense witnesses' testimonies. Whether the Trial Judge erred regarding provisional liberty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants for Murder, with a modification in the indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim. The Court ordered the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest against the accused-appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of witnesses and the defense of alibi: The Court found no room for reversal, giving more credence to the prosecution's version. The defense's insistence that Feliciano Bacho was the culprit was debunked by the victim's wife's affidavit, taken the day after the incident, which already identified the accused-appellants. Furthermore, a re-investigation by the Provincial Fiscal concluded that Bacho was not the stabber, leading to the dismissal of the case against him and the filing of the information against the Competentes. The initial reluctance of eyewitness Rosita Galan to report the incident due to fear of involvement was deemed not to affect her credibility, as such reluctance is common. Her testimony regarding the time and place was also found plausible despite the defense's claim of heat, noting the presence of trees. The Court also ruled that the utterances heard by Rosita, such as Jesus Competente's "Here he is, here he is," and Aurora Competente's confrontation with Jaime, were admissible as part of the res gestae or as proof of the fact of utterance, not necessarily for their truth. The testimony of the victim's eight-year-old son, Sonny Dacir, was considered reliable, as his failure to immediately identify the assailants to his mother was explained by her having witnessed the incident herself and the police not having questioned him. On the presence of treachery and evident premeditation: The Court agreed with the defense that evident premeditation was incorrectly considered by the Trial Court, finding insufficient showing that the accused-appellants had previously conceived the crime and clung to their determination. However, the Court found that treachery was indeed present. The act of the son stabbing the victim while the father was strangling him, and the victim lying face down and unable to defend himself, demonstrated the employment of means to insure the execution of the killing without risk to the assailants. The victim's fall and subsequent strangulation and stabbing, with the stab wound on his back, indicated a complete lack of defense on his part. Thus, the crime was correctly categorized as Murder. On the issue of motive: The Court reiterated the dictum that motive is not essential to conviction when the accused are positively identified and there is no doubt as to their identity, as in this case. The defense's claim that the prosecution failed to establish motive was therefore unavailing. On the rejection of defense witnesses' testimonies: The Court found no error in the Trial Court's rejection of the defense witnesses' testimonies. The mere denial by Jesus Competente of strangling the victim could not prevail over positive identification by prosecution witnesses, and the autopsy findings confirmed strangulation. His version of the incident, where the victim allegedly chased Bacho after being stabbed and then knocked on his door, was deemed contrary to human experience given the victim's fatal wounds. Jaime Competente's defense of alibi was found to be weak and lacking in truth, as it was not corroborated by credible persons and it taxed credulity that he would sleep for an extended period during a fiesta and a baptism celebration. The testimonies of other defense witnesses, who echoed the version that Bacho was the stabber, were also rejected due to inconsistencies with the Provincial Fiscal's findings and the potential bias of close relations. P/Sgt. Wilfredo Bermas's testimony was also deemed unreliable, as his investigation was hasty and his initial complaint against Bacho was contradicted by the subsequent re-investigation. On the Trial Judge's error regarding provisional liberty: The Court noted with dismay that the Trial Court allowed provisional liberty on the same bail bond for accused-appellants sentenced to reclusion perpetua. This was considered a clear reversible error, and the Trial Judge was censured for this act. The Court ordered the immediate issuance of a Warrant of Arrest.
Main Doctrine
The presence of treachery, characterized by the employment of means tending to insure the execution of the killing without risk to the assailants from any defense the victim might have, elevates the crime to Murder. The defense of alibi is weak if established merely by the accused and their relatives. Motive is not essential to conviction when the accused are positively identified.