People v. Viovicente
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 21, 1991, in Quezon City, Fernando Hoyohoy y Ventura was attacked by four men, including accused-appellant Fernando Viovicente y Gondesa. The victim was allegedly held by the shoulders by Viovicente and another identified as 'Balweg,' while two others, 'Maning' and 'Duras,' stabbed him with a bolo and an icepick, respectively, inflicting mortal wounds. The victim died later that day. Fernando Flores, an eyewitness, testified to seeing the incident from ten steps away and identified Viovicente as one of the assailants. The victim's brother, Tomas Hoyohoy, also identified the assailants. The victim, in a statement to a police corporal before his death, identified 'Maning' and 'Duras' as his assailants. Accused-appellant claimed alibi, stating he was in Bataan at the time of the incident, corroborated by his mother. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City convicted accused-appellant of murder and sentenced him to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua, certifying the case to the Supreme Court for review due to the modification of the penalty. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the decision, primarily arguing that the courts below erred in giving weight to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies and disregarding the defense of alibi, particularly questioning the admissibility and weight of the victim's ante-mortem statements.
Issue(s)
Whether the victim's ante-mortem statement to his brother, identifying accused-appellant and 'Balweg' as assailants, is admissible as a dying declaration, and whether the victim's statement to the police corporal, identifying 'Maning' and 'Duras' as assailants, should be given more weight than the statement to his brother. Whether the eyewitness testimony of Fernando Flores positively identifying accused-appellant as one of the assailants is credible and sufficient for conviction. Whether the defense of alibi presented by accused-appellant is sufficient to overcome the positive identification by the eyewitness. Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals is correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court ordered accused-appellant to pay the heirs of the victim P9,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility and weight of the victim's ante-mortem statements: The Court held that the victim's statement to his brother, identifying accused-appellant and 'Balweg' as his assailants, was admissible as a dying declaration. It met the requisites under Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules on Evidence: it concerned the circumstances of his death, was made under consciousness of impending death due to the gravity of his wounds, the victim was competent to testify, and it was offered in a murder case where he was the victim. The Court clarified that the Revised Rules on Evidence do not require dying declarations to be in writing. The delay in reporting the statement to the authorities was satisfactorily explained, as the matter was under investigation. The Court also noted that the victim's statement to the police corporal, identifying 'Maning' and 'Duras,' was considered, but the eyewitness testimony of Fernando Flores was the primary basis for conviction. On the credibility of the eyewitness testimony: The Court gave great weight to the testimony of Fernando Flores, an eyewitness who positively identified accused-appellant as one of the assailants. Flores described the roles of each assailant, including Viovicente holding the victim's right shoulder. The Court found no ill motive for Flores to testify falsely and stated that his positive identification should be given greater credence than accused-appellant's denials. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility, which was respected by the Court of Appeals, was deemed correct. On the defense of alibi: The Court ruled that alibi cannot prevail against positive identification by an eyewitness. Accused-appellant's defense was further weakened by inconsistencies between his testimony and that of his mother regarding the details of his departure for Bataan, casting doubt on its veracity. The evidence showing accused-appellant's participation in the crime was considered unequivocal. On the penalty and damages: The Court of Appeals correctly increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua, as there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The trial court's imposition of a lesser penalty was not adequately justified. The Court affirmed the P9,000.00 for burial expenses as actual damages and the P50,000.00 for moral damages, and additionally awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Fernando Hoyohoy.
Main Doctrine
Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by an eyewitness. A dying declaration, even if not in writing, is admissible if it meets the requisites under the Rules of Evidence.