People v. Barellano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 14, 1993, Epifanio Cabales was drinking tuba with friends when he was approached from behind and shot twice with a .38 revolver. The first shot hit his head, causing him to fall, and the second shot hit his upper lip. The assailant then fired a third shot in the air and walked away. Epifanio Cabales died from the gunshot wounds. Procedural History: The accused, Pacifico Barellano @ "Junior", was indicted for Murder. He pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The accused appealed. The Petition: The accused-appellant alleged that the lower court erred in not giving due course to his defense and in not acquitting him.
Issue(s)
Whether the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses. Whether the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient for conviction. Whether treachery attended the commission of the crime. Whether the autopsy report was admissible and its evidentiary value. Whether the failure to present another witness creates an adverse presumption.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the accused-appellant guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with modification to delete the award for moral damages. The Court held that alibi is a weak defense, especially when contradicted by positive eyewitness identification. Treachery was found to have qualified the killing to murder. The admissibility and weight of the autopsy report were also discussed, along with the presumption arising from the non-presentation of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defense of alibi versus eyewitness identification: The Court reiterated the settled rule that alibi is the weakest of all defenses and should be rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses. The Court emphasized that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. In this case, the accused-appellant's alibi did not preclude his presence at the locus criminis, as the distance between his alleged location and the crime scene was only one kilometer, and the two locations were connected by a road. The Court found that it was not physically impossible for the accused-appellant to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. On the sufficiency of a single eyewitness testimony: The Court stressed that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction, even in a charge for murder. The Court cited numerous cases to support the principle that witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and that evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not quantity. In this case, the testimony of Felix Timkang, despite being the sole witness presented by the prosecution for the initial account, was found to be credible and consistent, and was further corroborated by another eyewitness, Benjamin Alico. On the presence of treachery: The Court found that treachery qualified the crime to murder. Treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, the accused-appellant stealthily approached the unarmed victim from behind and shot him in the head, affording the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. This attack was without warning and without provocation, and the means of execution were deliberately adopted to insure the killing. On the admissibility and evidentiary value of the autopsy report: The Court noted that the argument regarding the xerox copy of the autopsy report being inadmissible was raised too late, as no objection was made when it was formally offered in evidence. The Court reiterated the rule that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered. Even if the report were inadmissible, the conviction was primarily based on the eyewitness testimonies, and the fact of death was sufficiently established by these credible testimonies. On the failure to present another witness: The Court dismissed the argument that the failure to present Jose Dayola created an adverse presumption. The Court held that the prosecution has the discretion to choose whom to call as witnesses, and the failure to present a witness does not give rise to the presumption that the evidence would be adverse if produced, especially when the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. Furthermore, the Court noted that Dayola's testimony would have been merely corroborative, and no prejudicial inference arises from the failure to call a witness whose testimony would only be corroborative or cumulative.
Main Doctrine
Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification by eyewitnesses. The testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction. Treachery is present when the attack is sudden and unexpected, affording the victim no opportunity to defend himself.