GR L 12449; (May, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12449; May 30, 1961
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESPIRIDION ALIDO, ET AL., defendants. INOCENCIO HERVAS and MARCELO HERVAS, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of May 29, 1955, Francisco Hervas was fatally shot while investigating a noise near his house in Maasin, Iloilo. His widow, Concepcion Laserna, and son, Demetrio Hervas, witnessed the attack. Initially, on June 13, 1955, Concepcion executed a statement identifying only Espiridion Alido as the shooter, claiming she did not recognize his companions. Following an investigation prompted by Alido’s surrender and his extrajudicial confession implicating Inocencio and Marcelo Hervas, Concepcion later recanted. In a subsequent affidavit dated July 20, 1955, and in her trial testimony, she positively identified her husband’s cousins, Inocencio and Marcelo Hervas, along with Alido, as the perpetrators, asserting it was Inocencio who fired the fatal shot.
The prosecution established that on the morning after the killing, the victim’s daughter informed Inocencio Hervas, who then oversaw the immediate burial without reporting the crime. Both Inocencio and Marcelo Hervas were later found to have made themselves scarce during initial official inquiries. The three accused were charged with murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. The trial court convicted all three, but only Inocencio and Marcelo Hervas appealed.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of appellants Inocencio Hervas and Marcelo Hervas for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses Concepcion Laserna and Demetrio Hervas to be credible and sufficient to establish appellants’ guilt. The Court accepted Concepcion’s explanation that her initial statement, which only identified Alido, was made under duress and fear of Inocencio Hervas, who had threatened her life. Her subsequent consistent and positive identification in court, corroborated by her son’s unwavering testimony, carried greater weight. The Court noted that the shooting occurred at dusk, providing adequate light for recognition, and the appellants were close relatives known to the witnesses.
The appellants’ conduct after the crime demonstrated consciousness of guilt. Inocencio facilitated a hasty burial without authorities, and both appellants absented themselves when sought for investigation, despite Marcelo’s duty as a barrio lieutenant to report the crime. The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and denied the victim any chance to defend himself. However, it ruled that Alido’s extrajudicial confession implicating the appellants was inadmissible against them, thereby negating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation for lack of independent proof. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each appellant was thus affirmed.