People v. Lopez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 15, 1991, at around 9:00 PM, Rogelio Seldera, Rodolfo Padapat, and Mario Seldera were walking along a narrow trail beside the Banila river in Barangay Nancalabasaan, Umingan, Pangasinan. Rogelio was leading, followed by Mario, and then Rodolfo. Suddenly, accused-appellant Federico Lopez, armed with a shotgun and accompanied by an unarmed man, appeared and without a word, fired at the three victims. Rogelio and Rodolfo slumped down, and Lopez's companion rolled them over with his foot. Lopez and his companion then left. Mario, though wounded in the back, survived. He reported the incident to his uncle, Alfredo Padapat, and then to the barangay captain, who accompanied them to the police. Mario, who was 11 years old at the time, positively identified Federico Lopez as the assailant, noting his attire and recognizing him as a frequent visitor to their house and a store owner from whom he bought cigarettes. Dr. Thelma C. Busto conducted post-mortem examinations on Rogelio Seldera and Rodolfo Padapat, determining the cause of death as cerebral hemorrhage and cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to gunshot wounds. Dr. Santos treated Mario Seldera for three gunshot wounds on his back. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan (Branch 52) found accused-appellant Federico Lopez guilty of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each murder and prision mayor for frustrated murder, along with various damages. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the decision, alleging errors in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, particularly the credibility of the sole eyewitness, the condition of the night, the defense of alibi, and the existence of another person with the same nickname.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Mario Seldera. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the testimonies of defense witnesses regarding the condition of the night. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the defense of alibi put up by the accused. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the existence of two persons sporting the name "Amboy Lopez". Whether the accused-appellant was correctly convicted of double murder and frustrated murder, and the propriety of the awarded damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for two counts of murder but modified the conviction for the injuries sustained by Mario Seldera from frustrated murder to attempted murder. The Court also modified the awards of damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Mario Seldera: The Court found no merit in the contention that Mario Seldera's testimony was unbelievable. The Court held that the harrowing experience, including suffering gunshot wounds and being presumed dead, would etch the memory of the assailant deeply in his mind. It is natural for victims of criminal violence to notice the appearance of their assailants and the manner the crime was committed. Mario's identification of the accused-appellant was further corroborated by the nature of the wounds sustained by the victims, consistent with the use of a shotgun at close range. The Court also noted that the moon provided sufficient illumination, citing previous rulings that 60% illumination is adequate for identification. Mario's familiarity with the accused-appellant, stemming from his frequent visits to their house and purchases from his store, further strengthened the identification. The Court emphasized that identification by an eyewitness with no improper motive should be given full faith and credence. On the condition of the night: The Court rejected the argument that it was too dark to identify the assailant. Citing meteorological data, the Court stated there was 60% illumination from the moon, which is sufficient for identification, referencing prior jurisprudence. The Court also noted that Mario had been walking under the moonlight for some time, allowing his eyes to adjust. The defense witnesses' testimonies about the darkness were considered less credible in light of the positive identification by Mario and the established lunar illumination. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi to be weak and unconvincing. The distance between the accused-appellant's claimed location and the crime scene was not so great as to render his presence at the scene physically impossible. The Court reiterated that for alibi to prosper, it must be shown that physical impossibility prevented the accused from being at the scene. Furthermore, the alibi was riddled with inconsistencies, such as the differing times of his departure from the party as stated in his counter-affidavit and his court testimony, and the discrepancy in the number of people present at the party. The Court stressed that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by an eyewitness. On the existence of two "Amboy Lopez" individuals: The Court dismissed the argument that Mario might have mistaken the accused-appellant for another person named "Amboy Lopez." The witness identified the accused-appellant based on personal knowledge of him, not merely by nickname. The Court also noted that Rodrigo "Thunder" Lopez, the other individual with a similar nickname, was darker and shorter than the accused-appellant, and was not even a suspect. Mario's positive identification was based on his familiarity with the accused-appellant. On the conviction for murder and frustrated murder, and the propriety of the awarded damages: The Court affirmed the conviction for two counts of murder, finding that treachery qualified the killings. The victims were attacked suddenly and without provocation while walking along a trail. However, the Court modified the conviction for the injuries sustained by Mario Seldera from frustrated murder to attempted murder. The Court reasoned that Mario's injuries, though inflicted with intent to kill, were not life-threatening, as they were expected to heal in seven days and did not require hospitalization beyond an X-ray referral. The Court also noted that treachery attended the attack on Mario, thus elevating the crime to attempted murder. The Court modified the awards of damages. It affirmed the P50,000.00 civil indemnity for each deceased victim and increased the moral damages to P50,000.00 for each set of heirs. The Court awarded P5,000.00 each for temperate damages to the heirs of Rogelio Seldera and Rodolfo Padapat, acknowledging the difficulty in proving exact funeral expenses. For the injuries sustained by Mario Seldera, the Court deleted the awards for moral and exemplary damages due to lack of evidence and the absence of aggravating circumstances beyond treachery. It awarded P200.00 as temperate damages for medical expenses. The Court also awarded substantial amounts for unearned income for both Rogelio Seldera and Rodolfo Padapat, applying established formulas.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by an eyewitness who has no improper motive to falsely testify. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Furthermore, the crime of attempted murder, not frustrated murder, may be committed when the injuries sustained are not life-threatening.