G.R. No. L-14639 December 28, 1964
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO CONTANTE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of June 26, 1952, Anatolio Adayo was shot and killed in his house in Panagan, Tigaon, Camarines Sur. The investigation led to a murder complaint against Tomas Garchitorena and Julio Contante. Garchitorena was discharged after a preliminary investigation for insufficiency of evidence, and the case proceeded against Contante. The prosecution’s evidence established that months prior, Adayo discovered his wife, Luz Rodriguez, in adultery with Garchitorena. Garchitorena later proposed to Luz to have her husband killed, which she refused. On February 19, 1952, Garchitorena, armed with an M-1 rifle, confronted Adayo but was disarmed. Adayo filed charges for illegal possession of a firearm and grave threats against Garchitorena. In March 1952, Garchitorena proposed to his overseer, Vivencio Ditan, to kill Adayo to prevent him from testifying, but Ditan refused. Garchitorena then replaced Ditan with Contante as overseer. In May 1952, Ditan overheard Garchitorena offer Contante P500 to kill Adayo, which Contante accepted, specifying the use of a shotgun. On the night of the killing, as Adayo stood on a chair to fix his door, he was shot with a shotgun. Marciano Adayo, the victim’s brother, saw Contante fleeing the scene with a shotgun. Ditan confirmed only Contante among Garchitorena’s workers was issued a shotgun. Contante was later apprehended, gave a voluntary extrajudicial confession detailing the crime at Garchitorena’s inducement for a reward, led authorities to the discarded shotgun (confirmed as the murder weapon via ballistic tests), and freely re-enacted the crime. The defense presented alibi witnesses placing Contante in Maangas at the time and attempted to discredit Marciano Adayo’s testimony, while Contante repudiated his confession as coerced. The trial court convicted Contante of murder qualified by treachery, aggravated by price and dwelling, and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the defense of alibi was sufficiently established and whether the circumstantial evidence warranted a conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The defense of alibi was insufficient as it was not physically impossible for Contante to be at the crime scene given the distance between locations (a two-hour boat ride and short bus trip). The testimony of Marciano Adayo, who saw Contante fleeing, remained credible despite defense attempts to discredit him. The circumstantial evidence, comprising eight established circumstances (including motive from Garchitorena’s inducement and reward, Contante’s possession of a shotgun, his presence at the scene, flight, recovery of the weapon, ballistic match, extrajudicial confession, and re-enactment), formed an unbroken chain leading conclusively to Contante’s guilt. The crime was murder qualified by treachery (the victim was shot while defenseless, fixing his door) and aggravated by price (monetary reward) and dwelling (crime committed in the victim’s home). The Court noted a “travesty of justice” as Contante, a simple farmer, bore the full burden while Garchitorena, who allegedly masterminded the crime, was excluded from prosecution, and recommended the Department of Justice investigate Garchitorena’s potential liability. Due to Contante’s lack of education and inability to secure the requisite votes for the death penalty, the sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to P6,000.