GR 121736; (December, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121736 December 17, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SAPAL MIDTOMOD, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Sapal Midtomod, along with Usalim Aplan, Gido Midtomod, Idu Pagayao, and Israpil Liposin, was charged with murder for the death of Ciriaco Ronquillo on November 26, 1985, in Bgy. Inac, Mlang, Cotabato. Only Sapal Midtomod and Usalim Aplan were tried, as the others were not apprehended or escaped. The prosecution’s principal witness, Arthur Ronquillo, son of the deceased, testified that he saw five Muslim farm laborers, including Sapal Midtomod, surround his father. He specifically identified Sapal Midtomod and Idu Pagayao as the ones who stabbed his father. The defense of both accused was alibi, claiming they were in their respective houses at the time of the killing. The trial court convicted both accused of murder. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Sapal Midtomod but acquitted Usalim Aplan, modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The case was certified to the Supreme Court for review as the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. Before the Supreme Court, Sapal Midtomod sought to withdraw his appeal, which was denied.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the conviction of accused-appellant Sapal Midtomod for the crime of murder is proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the crime scene, given that his house was only half a kilometer away, a distance negotiable in five minutes by tricycle. The alibi could not prevail over the positive and unwavering identification by eyewitness Arthur Ronquillo, who saw appellant stab the victim. The Court found no merit in appellant’s attempts to discredit the eyewitness testimony. The crime was murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, as the 78-year-old victim was attacked by five male assailants, at least two of whom were armed. Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court noted that the trial court originally imposed an indeterminate sentence, but the Court of Appeals correctly imposed reclusion perpetua, applying the penalty in its medium period as there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.