G.R. No. L-25372 November 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SENCIO GUTIERREZ, JOSE QUIRINO and DONDO CABRAL, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On December 29, 1963, at about 10:00 p.m., Liberato Tabuena sustained multiple fatal wounds in Barrio Himay, Gandara, Samar. The identity of his killers was the sole issue. Earlier that evening, after dinner, a fight occurred between Tito Julaton and Ely Colili, leaving Ely seriously wounded on an embankment near Liberato’s house. Ely had been earlier drinking with the defendants—Sencio Gutierrez, Jose Quirino, and Dondo Cabral—at Ildefonso Versoza’s house nearby. Upon hearing of the fight, the defendants, armed with bolos and with Dondo Cabral holding a torch, went to Ely. They asked Liberato to help borrow a hammock to carry Ely. After retrieving Ely and bringing him to Liberato’s yard, while Liberato was tying the hammock, Sencio Gutierrez stabbed him in the back, and Jose Quirino hacked his shoulder. As Liberato fled, the defendants pursued and attacked him with bolos, inflicting twelve penetrating wounds which caused his death. The prosecution’s version, supported by eyewitnesses Prudencio Manoso and Benjamin Tabuena (Liberato’s son), was accepted by the trial court. The defense claimed they remained in Versoza’s house for three hours out of fear and suggested Liberato and Ely were wounded in a free-for-all with Tito Julaton. The trial court found the defendants guilty of murder.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendants of murder based on the evidence presented, including the rejection of the defense’s alibi and the denial of a motion to reopen the case for additional testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was upheld, as the prosecution witnesses positively identified the defendants during a moonlit night with the aid of a torch, and their testimony was corroborated by the nature and number of wounds. The defense’s version was deemed inherently incredible and constituted a weak alibi, as Versoza’s house was only meters from the crime scene. The motion to reopen was correctly denied, as the proposed testimony of Ely Colili was merely corroborative and not newly discovered. The crime was murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength or treachery, with no modifying circumstances. The penalty of life imprisonment was affirmed. The indemnity to the heirs was increased from P6,000 to P12,000 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.