GR L 33490; (August, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33490 August 30, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO CLEMENTER, FEDERICO CLEMENTER, ELISEO CLEMENTER, and CARLITO CLEMENTER, accused. ELISEO CLEMENTER, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the night of November 23, 1969, Concordio Saraos and his wife, Dalmacia Melgar, were in their house in Maramag, Bukidnon, when eight men, including the five Clementer brothers, arrived. Federico Clementer, pretending to be a policeman, demanded Saraos come down, claiming there was a warrant for his arrest. The demand stemmed from a grudge, as the Clementers suspected Saraos of hiding a relative involved in the killing of their brother days earlier. When Saraos refused, Federico fired at him. To pacify the group, Dalmacia voluntarily went downstairs, where she was immediately seized by appellant Eliseo Clementer.
Eliseo dragged Dalmacia to a tree, tore her blouse, tied her hands behind her back, and then shot her at close range in the back, causing instantaneous death. Saraos was also wounded by Federico but survived. The police investigation and medical findings confirmed the fatal gunshot wound at the victim’s back, with powder burns indicating the gun was fired from very close range. An information for murder was filed against the Clementer brothers.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellant Eliseo Clementer for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Concordio Saraos credible and sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt. Saraos positively identified Eliseo as the one who seized, tied, and shot his wife, with his account corroborated by physical evidence and the medical report showing a close-range gunshot wound to the back. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially in light of the positive identification.
The Court upheld the trial court’s appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength under Article 14(15) of the Revised Penal Code. Eliseo, armed and aided by seven companions, took advantage of his superior strength to assault the unarmed and helpless female victim who had approached them guilelessly. The circumstances of treachery and disregard of sex were deemed absorbed in abuse of superiority. With no other modifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed. The Court modified the judgment to grant appellant full credit for preventive imprisonment under the applicable amendatory law.