G.R. No. L-20286 October 29, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ASTERIO VALERA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Asterio Valera, along with Domingo Bodaño and Zacarias Molina, was charged with attempted robbery with murder before the Court of First Instance of Abra. The charges against Bodaño and Molina were later quashed for insufficiency of evidence. After trial, Valera was found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with an indemnity to the heirs of the deceased. He appealed.
The prosecution evidence established that on April 13, 1960, at around 11:00 a.m., in front of the public market of Bangued, Abra, Bernardino Sumalnap was approached by teenagers Bodaño and Molina, who later returned with Asterio Valera. Valera suddenly stabbed Sumalnap several times on the breast, causing Sumalnap to drop his bags, run about 10 meters, stumble, and fall. He was brought to a hospital but died soon after. An autopsy confirmed he died of shock due to hemorrhage from internal and external wounds.
Valera presented an alibi, claiming that at the time of the incident, he was in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, where he was apprehended by a policeman for not producing his driver’s license after sideswiping a calesa. He asserted he was detained until about 3:00 p.m. and returned to Bangued by 6:00 p.m. His alibi was corroborated by his mother, Isidra Valera, and by Police Sergeant Basiliso F. Anies, who presented a police blotter entry showing Valera’s apprehension at noon on April 13, 1960. Valera also alleged he was implicated due to machinations by Mayor Aznar, who tried to extort money from him, and denied threatening prosecution witness Julio Tumbaga.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Asterio Valera based on the credibility of prosecution witnesses and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court carefully evaluated the evidence and found the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies credible, consistent, and straightforward, while the defense of alibi was weak and insufficient to overcome the positive identification of Valera as the assailant. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the police blotter presented to support the alibi was falsified, noting discrepancies and circumstances indicating it was concocted. The testimony of Valera’s mother was also deemed unreliable, as she admitted offering money to a witness to refrain from testifying, which undermined her claim of his innocence. The Court further ruled that the trial court did not deny Valera due process by recalling a witness or calling a witness not on the fiscal’s list, as such actions are discretionary and allowed to promote justice. The penalty imposed was in accordance with law.