People v. Factao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of August 23, 1991, in Barangay Sirawagan, San Joaquin, Iloilo, Fernando Sardoma was shot inside a kamalig (hut) near the seashore. Vicente Manolos, who was defecating nearby, saw Juan Factao armed with a garand rifle and Albert Francis Labroda approach the hut. Labroda looked around while Factao peeped into the hut, aimed his rifle through a hole in the bamboo wall, and fired. Both then fled towards the Sirawagan River. Jose Manuel Sermona also witnessed Factao, Labroda, and Tirso Servidad approach the hut, with Factao carrying a garand rifle. Sermona saw Factao shoot into the hut after Labroda looked around. Eduardo Sardoma, inside the hut, heard the explosion, went out, and saw Servidad bending and moving his head, whom Eduardo then embraced. Eduardo also saw Factao and Labroda running away. Fernando Sardoma was found bleeding inside the hut and died on the way to the hospital. The autopsy revealed a gunshot wound causing perforation of vital organs, with hypovolemic shock as the cause of death. The victim likely had his side towards the assailant. Procedural History: Appellants Juan Factao, Albert Francis Labroda, and Tirso Servidad were charged with Murder. They pleaded not guilty and invoked alibi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City found all three guilty of Murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity and other damages. The accused appealed. The Petition: The accused appealed their conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of appellants Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether conspiracy was adequately established between Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda. Whether the alibi of Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda was credible and sufficient to acquit them. Whether the guilt of appellant Tirso Servidad was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether treachery attended the commission of the crime. Whether evident premeditation was proven. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling were correctly appreciated. Whether the penalty imposed by the RTC was correct.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the conviction of Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda for Murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay civil indemnity, exemplary damages, temperate damages, and attorney's fees. The Court acquitted Tirso Servidad due to insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC's appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was sustained, while nighttime was absorbed by treachery. Evident premeditation was not proven.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda: The positive identification by prosecution witnesses Vicente Manolos and Jose Manuel Sermona, who were familiar with the appellants, was sufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Manolos testified to seeing Factao and Labroda approach the hut, with Factao armed with a garand rifle, and witnessing Factao shoot into the hut after Labroda looked around. Sermona corroborated this account. The defense of alibi presented by Factao and Labroda, claiming they were celebrating a birthday, was weak and could not overcome the positive identification. Furthermore, they failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime, as Labroda's house was only about a kilometer away. On conspiracy between Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda: Conspiracy was adequately established by their concerted actions before, during, and after the shooting. Labroda's act of looking around to check for other people while Factao was preparing to shoot demonstrated a common design. Their simultaneous flight from the scene further evinced a joint purpose and community of interest. The Court reiterated that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense. On the alibi of Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda: The alibi of Factao and Labroda was unconvailing. The Court emphasized that alibi, being an inherently weak defense, cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses. Moreover, for an alibi to be considered, the accused must demonstrate not only that they were elsewhere but also that their presence at the crime scene was physically impossible. The appellants' claim of celebrating a birthday party was insufficient, especially since their claimed location was not far from the scene of the crime. On the guilt of Tirso Servidad: The prosecution failed to establish Servidad's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Vicente Manolos, a key prosecution witness, initially did not mention Servidad's presence at the scene during the shooting, only seeing Factao and Labroda. While Manolos later mentioned hearing Servidad's voice and noticing him when carrying the victim, his testimony was inconsistent with Jose Manuel Sermona's claim that Servidad was with Factao and Labroda approaching the hut. The Court found Eduardo Sardoma's testimony of catching Servidad peeping into the hut as Factao and Labroda fled to be contrary to human nature, as a guilty person would likely flee with his cohorts. Furthermore, Servidad's behavior of walking and saluting the Chief of Police some distance from the scene was deemed unusual for someone involved in a killing. The Court held that mere presence at the scene does not automatically make one a co-conspirator, and no evidence was presented to deduce Servidad's conspiracy. On treachery: Treachery was present as an aggravating circumstance. The offender, Factao, employed means and methods that tended directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. He first peeped into the hut, inserted his rifle through a hole in the bamboo wall, and shot Fernando Sardoma, who was lying on his side, defenseless, and unaware of the impending attack. This mode of execution clearly insured the commission of the crime without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might offer. On evident premeditation: Evident premeditation was not adequately proven. The Court reiterated the elements of evident premeditation: (1) the time the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) overt acts indicating adherence to the resolve, and (3) a sufficient interval between determination and execution for reflection. Since there was no evidence presented regarding how and when the plan to kill was formed, or the time elapsed between the determination and execution, this circumstance could not be considered. On aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling: The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, as the killing was committed in the victim's dwelling without provocation. However, nighttime was absorbed by treachery and should not have been appreciated separately. The Court noted that nighttime is generally absorbed in treachery when it is utilized to facilitate the commission of the crime and ensure the offender's safety. On the penalty and damages: The crime committed by Factao and Labroda was Murder, qualified by treachery. At the time of the offense, the penalty for Murder was reclusion temporal maximum to death. With the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and no mitigating circumstances, the maximum penalty should have been imposed. However, as the death penalty was suspended at the time, reclusion perpetua was the appropriate penalty. The Court affirmed the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and awarded P25,000.00 as exemplary damages due to the aggravating circumstance. The award of P10,000.00 for coffin and P10,000.00 for wake/funeral expenses was deleted for lack of receipts, but P25,000.00 in temperate damages was awarded to each guilty appellant. The P9,000.00 attorney's fees were sustained.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi, while inherently weak, gains significance when the prosecution's evidence is also weak. However, alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses. For an alibi to be credible, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere but also that their presence at the scene of the crime was physically impossible.