GR 125966; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125966 ; January 13, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JUAN FACTAO alias “BOYET,” ALBERT FRANCIS LABRODA alias “ABET,” and TIRSO SERVIDAD, appellants.
FACTS
In the evening of August 23, 1991, Fernando Sardoma was fatally shot inside his hut in Barangay Sirawagan, San Joaquin, Iloilo. Prosecution witnesses Vicente Manolos and Jose Manuel Sermona testified that they saw appellants Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda approach the hut, with Factao carrying a Garand rifle. Factao peeped into the illuminated hut, aimed through a hole in the bamboo wall, and fired. Both witnesses saw the two flee towards the Sirawagan River. Another witness, Eduardo Sardoma, who was inside the hut, heard the shot, went outside, and saw appellant Tirso Servidad acting suspiciously before apprehending him. The victim died from the gunshot wound, and the three accused were charged with Murder.
The accused denied involvement, invoking alibi. Factao and Labroda, both CAFGU members, claimed they were at Labroda’s birthday party at the time. Servidad, also a CAFGU member, testified he was on his way home when he heard the explosion, investigated upon the barangay captain’s order, and helped the victim’s companions. The trial court convicted all three of Murder, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellants Juan Factao, Albert Francis Labroda, and Tirso Servidad for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda but acquitted Tirso Servidad. For Factao and Labroda, the prosecution evidence was strong and credible. Two eyewitnesses, Vicente Manolos and Jose Manuel Sermona, positively identified them at the scene, with Factao as the shooter and Labroda as a lookout. Their alibi, requiring physical impossibility of being at the crime scene, was weak and uncorroborated. The Court found no ill motive for the witnesses to falsely testify. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden, from outside the hut, ensuring the defenseless victim had no means to resist.
For Servidad, the evidence was intrinsically weak. The lone testimony implicating him came from Eduardo Sardoma, who did not see Servidad at the scene of the shooting but only acting suspiciously nearby afterwards. This did not establish conspiracy. Servidad’s alibi was corroborated by the barangay captain and was consistent with his claim of helping after the fact. The prosecution failed to prove his participation in a conspiracy to kill beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that while alibi is generally weak, it prevails when the prosecution’s evidence is equally insufficient. Thus, Servidad was acquitted.