People v. Azugue
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 27, 1990, at Brgy. Cogon, Roxas City, Joebe Arrobang was stabbed by Morito Salvador, causing his death. The Amended Information accused Morito Salvador, Buenafe Azugue, and Bertito Beturin of murder, alleging conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. The prosecution's sole eyewitness, Porferio Delmo, testified that while the victim alighted from a jeep stuck in the mud, Buenafe Azugue held the victim's arms, and Morito Salvador stabbed him from behind. The victim sustained a fatal stab wound. Procedural History: Accused Buenafe Azugue pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Buenafe Azugue guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The Petition: Accused-appellant Buenafe Azugue appealed the RTC decision, assailing the credibility of the sole prosecution witness and arguing for the validity of his alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the lone prosecution witness. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the defense of alibi of the accused-appellant.
Ruling
The appeal is DISMISSED. The trial court's Decision convicting appellant Buenafe Azugue y Amador of murder and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the payment to the victim's heirs of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is AFFIRMED in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of the lone prosecution witness: The Court found that the trial court correctly gave credence to the eyewitness testimony of Porferio Delmo. Delmo provided a straightforward and unequivocal account of the stabbing incident, positively identifying Buenafe Azugue as the one who held the victim's arms while Morito Salvador stabbed him from behind. The delay in Delmo's statement to the police or prosecutor was sufficiently explained by him, stating that other passengers had already reported the incident. The Court reiterated the principle that the trial court's assessment of credibility, having observed the witnesses' demeanor, is entitled to the highest respect. The positive identification by Delmo, who had no apparent motive to testify falsely, was deemed worthy of full faith and credit. The Court emphasized that it is a matter of judicial acceptance that a witness would not falsely impute a serious criminal offense without basis. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi unworthy of credence. Alibi is considered one of the weakest defenses, requiring proof of physical impossibility for the accused to have been at the crime scene. The testimonies of the accused-appellant and his father-in-law, Wilfredo Buenvenida, contained glaring inconsistencies regarding the dates of their departure and return from Dao, Capiz. Specifically, Azugue claimed to have returned on October 28, 1990, while Buenvenida stated they returned on October 30, 1990, despite testifying on the same day and Buenvenida testifying first. These inconsistencies indicated that their testimonies were fabricated. The Court also discredited the testimony of Merlinda Fajartin, sister of the co-accused Morito Salvador, as it sought to alter the crime scene and limit the perpetrator to her brother alone, suggesting it was a concocted version to acquit Azugue. The Court found that Azugue's active participation in immobilizing the victim, even without directly inflicting the fatal blow, established his liability as part of the conspiracy to kill the victim.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi, being inherently weak and easy to fabricate, cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible eyewitness who has no motive to testify falsely. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene.