People v. Muyano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jaime Q. Muyano was charged with murder and illegal possession of a firearm. Ernesto H. Gonzales and Ricky O. Fajardo were charged with the murder of Mar S. Rebustes. All pleaded not guilty. Muyano later pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a firearm and was sentenced accordingly. The murder cases were jointly tried. Gonzales was acquitted due to failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Muyano and Fajardo were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila, convicted Jaime Muyano and Ricky Fajardo of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of Mar Rebustes in the amount of P30,000.00. Ernesto Gonzales was acquitted. The Petition: Appellants Jaime Muyano and Ricky Fajardo appealed the decision, assigning a single error: that the trial court erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused Jaime Muyano and Ricky Fajardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can be appreciated. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, with modifications. The penalty imposed upon appellants Jaime Q. Muyano and Ricky Fajardo was changed to reclusion perpetua, and the award of indemnity for the death of Mar Rebustes was increased to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the trial court erred in finding the accused Jaime Muyano and Ricky Fajardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's findings. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, Gil Gamitin, Jr. and Editha Ocampo, who positively identified Ricky Fajardo as the perpetrator. Gamitin testified that Muyano and Fajardo approached Rebustes frontally, encircled him, Fajardo placed his arm on Rebustes' nape, went behind him, and shot him on the back of the head with a .38 caliber pistol. Muyano then took Rebustes' service firearm. The defense of alibi offered by Muyano and Fajardo was unavailing. Muyano claimed he merely heard a shot and picked up a gun, which he gave to another person. Fajardo claimed he was in a "pub house" 90 meters away. The Court found Muyano's explanation implausible and Fajardo's alibi weak, especially since the "pub house" was not physically impossible to leave and return from. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that alibi cannot prosper as a defense where the accused was positively identified as the killer and where there was no physical impossibility of their presence at the scene of the crime. On the issue of whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can be appreciated: The Supreme Court ruled that evident premeditation could not be appreciated. The essential requisites for evident premeditation were not proven. These requisites include the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination, and the lapse of an interval of time between the determination and the execution sufficient for reflection. The prosecution failed to establish these elements, specifically the time of determination and the interval for reflection. On the issue of whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is correct: The Supreme Court corrected the penalty imposed by the trial court. While the trial court imposed "life imprisonment," the appropriate penalty under the Revised Penal Code for murder is "reclusion perpetua." The Court clarified that life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua are juridically different, with reclusion perpetua having specific durations and accessory penalties. Therefore, the penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity for the death of the victim was also increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
Alibi cannot prosper as a defense where the accused was positively identified as the perpetrator of the crime, especially when the alibi is not supported by physical impossibility of the accused having committed the crime charged. Treachery is appreciated when the means employed in the commission of the crime assures its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the victim might make.