GR 111692; (February, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111692 ; February 9, 1996
ALEJANDRO FUENTES, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alejandro Fuentes, Jr., was convicted of murder for the killing of Julieto Malaspina during a benefit dance. Prosecution witnesses Alberto Toling and Honorio Osok positively identified Fuentes as the assailant who, after a brief conversation, suddenly stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen. The victim, before succumbing to his wound, identified his attacker as “Alejandro Fuentes, Jr.” The Regional Trial Court found Fuentes guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Fuentes denied the accusation, claiming his cousin, Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., alias “Jonie,” was the actual perpetrator. He testified that after the incident, Zoilo confessed to the killing. To support this, the defense presented Felicisimo Fuentes, an uncle, who testified that Zoilo admitted the stabbing to him and showed him the knife. Station Commander P/Sgt. Benjamin Conde, Jr., also testified that Felicisimo later relayed this confession to him.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Fuentes’s conviction based on the positive identification by prosecution witnesses and in rejecting the admissibility of Zoilo Fuentes’s alleged extrajudicial confession as a declaration against penal interest.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The positive identification of Fuentes by multiple eyewitnesses who knew him personally was deemed credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the minor discrepancy between the witnesses’ testimony (right lumbar) and the autopsy report (left lumbar) inconsequential to the core fact of the stabbing.
The Court ruled that the alleged confession of Zoilo Fuentes was inadmissible hearsay and did not qualify as a declaration against penal interest under Rule 130, Section 38 of the Rules of Court. For such a declaration to be admissible, the declarant must be unavailable to testify. Here, there was no competent proof that Zoilo was deceased or unable to testify; he was merely reported to have fled. Without establishing this essential requisite of unavailability, the confession remained inadmissible. Furthermore, the defense’s own witness, Nerio Biscocho, undermined the defense by testifying that “Jonie” and petitioner Alejandro Fuentes, Jr., were the same person.
The penalty was corrected to reclusion perpetua in accordance with the prevailing law on murder. However, the award of P8,300.00 as actual damages was deleted for lack of substantiation by receipts or other competent evidence, as mere testimony on expenses incurred is insufficient. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to the victim’s heirs was sustained.