GR 98061; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 98061 ; January 25, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CASIMIRO DE CASTRO and ANTONIETO PLAZA, accused. CASIMIRO DE CASTRO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On July 20, 1987, at around 2:30 a.m., Macario Aporbo and his companions were walking home from a barangay benefit dance in Marihatag, Surigao del Sur. Prosecution witness Yolanda Aporbo testified that accused-appellant Casimiro de Castro suddenly appeared, sideswiped her, and attempted to thrust a bolo at Macario. The victim parried the initial lunge but was then pushed by accused Antonieto Plaza, causing him to fall. While Macario was supine, appellant struck him with the bolo on the left chest, causing instantaneous death. The accused fled to a nearby house, where another witness, Felipe Lopez, saw appellant with a bloodied bolo and shirt, admitting to the stabbing.
Appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was sleeping at his father-in-law’s house, located 25 meters from the crime scene, during the incident. He was corroborated by Cresencio Campos, who testified he and the father-in-law were drinking in another room. Appellant asserted he learned of the killing the next morning, even attended the wake, and later left for Davao not to flee but to work, returning in 1989 when he surrendered.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Casimiro de Castro of Murder qualified by treachery.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Yolanda Aporbo and Felipe Lopez to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Their positive identification of appellant as the assailant prevails over his denial and alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Here, the distance of 25 meters between the alleged location and the crime scene negates any physical impossibility; appellant could have easily sneaked out unnoticed. The Court disfavors such easily contrived defenses.
The killing was qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that denied the unarmed victim any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. Although the victim parried the first thrust, this was deemed an instinctive reaction, not a prepared defense, and did not negate the treacherous execution. The Court modified the civil liability, increasing the death indemnity to P50,000.00 but deleted the exemplary damages due to the absence of aggravating circumstances.