G.R. No. 104955, August 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HECTOR DOMINGO, JOSELITO DOMINGO, JUAN DOMINGO and VICENTE DOMINGO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On December 28, 1986, around 11:00 AM, Jose Teober Ricafort was killed in Barangay Guiron, Pilar, Sorsogon. His fiancée, Susana Loterte, witnessed the incident. She saw accused-appellants Hector, Joselito, Juan, and Vicente Domingo surround Jose. Hector, exclaiming “You are an animal, you were the one who stabbed my brother!”, lunged at Jose with a fish spear, hitting his chest. With the spear embedded, Jose ran but fell. The four accused then hacked and hit him on different parts of his body. Susana shouted for help. Julian Loterte responded and found Jose dead with severe wounds, a severed hand, his neck almost cut, and the fish spear in his chest. Susana reported the incident to authorities. Hector and Juan were arrested on December 29, 1986, with Hector having a bloodied shirt and a bolo, but were temporarily released due to the holidays. An Information for Murder was filed. During arraignment, all pleaded not guilty and interposed alibi. Vicente claimed he was repairing a motorboat in Tingco, Inapugan from December 26-30, 1986, corroborated by Wilson Matamorosa. Juan claimed he and his wife were at the pier in Aroroy, Masbate at 11:00 AM on December 28, waiting for a boat to Pilar, arriving there only at 5:00 PM, corroborated by Nemia Cardeño and Jerry Bermejo. Hector claimed he was selling fish at a cockpit in Apad, Pilar from morning until afternoon, corroborated by Mario Lomboy. Joselito claimed he was at his mother’s house in Naspi, Pilar, with no corroboration. The trial court convicted all four of Homicide. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the accused-appellants based on the eyewitness testimony of Susana Loterte and in rejecting their defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Homicide but modified the penalty and damages. The Court held that the positive identification by eyewitness Susana Loterte, who had no ill motive to testify falsely and who knew the accused-appellants as residents of the same barangay, prevailed over the defense of alibi. The Court found the alibis weak and unsubstantiated; the places where the accused claimed to be were not so far as to preclude their presence at the crime scene. The Court also ruled that the killing was not attended by treachery, as the attack was frontal and the victim was forewarned by Hector’s shout, thus qualifying the crime as Homicide, not Murder. The penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Civil liability was set at P50,000.00 as death indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages, deleting the award for actual expenses for lack of factual basis.