People v. Lago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 6, 1985, at approximately 2:00 AM, in Sitio Ladao, Barangay Sapad, Municipality of Sapad, Lanao del Norte, Crispin Caburnay, his wife Erlinda Caburnay, and their five children (Efren, William, Joven, and Criselyn) were inside their house. The front door was covered by a sack cloth. The accused-appellant, Johnny Lago, armed with a Garand rifle, and an unidentified companion, entered the house by opening the sack cloth door. Accused-appellant demanded money from Crispin Caburnay, who pleaded that they had none. Upon hearing this, accused-appellant shot Crispin point-blank, killing him instantly. Subsequently, accused-appellant shot Efren, William, Joven, Criselyn, and Erlinda. All were killed except Erlinda, who sustained serious gunshot wounds to her right and left thighs. After the shooting, accused-appellant left. Erlinda managed to tend to her wounds and later sought help, eventually being brought to a hospital where she was confined for four months. Procedural History: The accused-appellant was charged with multiple murder and frustrated murder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant Johnny Lago guilty beyond reasonable doubt of multiple murder and frustrated murder and sentenced him accordingly. The RTC ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased and pay for medical and hospitalization expenses. The Petition: Dissatisfied with the RTC's decision, accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors concerning the weight given to the prosecution witness's testimony, the credence given to his defense of denial and alibi, the finding of guilt for murder, and the imposition of the proper penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving undue weight to the testimony of the prosecution witness. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the defense of denial and alibi. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. Whether the trial court erred in not imposing the proper penalty, assuming guilt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modifications. Accused-appellant Johnny Lago was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five separate crimes of murder and one count of frustrated murder. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each of the five counts of murder and an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of Reclusion Temporal for the frustrated murder. Accused-appellant was ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victims P50,000.00 for the death of each victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the weight of the prosecution witness's testimony: The Court held that the testimony of Erlinda Caburnay, who positively identified accused-appellant as the killer, deserves full credit and belief. Her testimony was clear, positive, and straightforward. The Court reiterated the principle that the weight given to the testimony of witnesses with integrity and intelligence, and no motive to fabricate, depends on their observation and means of knowing the facts. Erlinda had ample opportunity to observe the accused as she was present in the room where the killing occurred and was herself wounded. There was no showing that she harbored ill motives against the accused; her motive was to bring the culprit to justice. The room was lighted, and there was moonlight, enabling her to see the accused. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi posed by accused-appellant to be of scant consideration. It reiterated that alibi is the weakest defense and cannot prevail over positive identification. Furthermore, the defense of alibi is further weakened when it was not physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. The house of the accused-appellant was only one kilometer away from the victims' house, a distance that did not preclude his physical presence at the crime scene. On the finding of guilt for murder: The Court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five separate crimes of murder. The deaths of Crispin, Efren, William, Joven, and Criselyn were not the result of a single act but of several gunshots. The Court qualified the crime with treachery, as the killing was sudden, unexpected, and the victims were defenseless. Additionally, the Court found the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling present, as the crimes were perpetrated inside the victims' home. These factors supported the conviction for murder. On the imposition of the proper penalty: The Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. It held that accused-appellant was guilty of five separate crimes of murder, each qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling. The penalty for each murder should be imposed in its maximum period, which is reclusion perpetua. For the frustrated murder, also qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling, the imposable penalty is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of Reclusion Temporal. The civil liability was also increased to P50,000.00 for each death.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused, especially when the distance between the accused's residence and the crime scene does not preclude his presence. Furthermore, the crime of murder, when committed with treachery and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua for each offense.