GR 113515; (November, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113515 November 23, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTEMIO LAPUZ (at large), ARMANDO LAPUZ and CELSO LAPUZ, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Armando and Celso Lapuz, along with their brother Artemio (at large), were charged with Murder for the killing of Atillano Llames on October 6, 1990, in Lopez, Quezon. Prosecution eyewitnesses Efren Teruel and Edilberto Regalado testified that while the victim was watching a basketball game, Armando attacked him with a lead pipe. During the struggle, Artemio arrived with a bolo and hacked the victim upon Armando’s instigation. Celso then joined, hacking the victim’s knees, causing him to fall. The assault continued relentlessly even after the victim fell. In a final gruesome act, Celso returned to the corpse and delivered a hacking blow that severed the victim’s head from his body.
The defense presented contrasting versions. Armando denied participation, claiming he was the victim of a mauling by the victim and others earlier that day, and presented a medical certificate. He asserted he fled and had no knowledge of the killing. Celso interposed alibi, testifying he was in a different barangay the entire day, a claim corroborated by his mother.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellants Armando and Celso Lapuz for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the clear, consistent, and categorical testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses who positively identified appellants as perpetrators. The legal logic is that positive identification prevails over weak defenses of denial and alibi. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and must be established with clear evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. Here, Celso’s claimed location was merely ten kilometers away and accessible by vehicle, failing this test. Armando’s denial, uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot overcome the positive testimony of witnesses.
Furthermore, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated. The attack involved three brothers, two armed with bolos and one with a lead pipe, against a lone and unarmed victim, demonstrating a deliberate use of overwhelming force to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to themselves. The brutality of the attack, culminating in the decapitation of the victim, substantiates this qualifying circumstance, properly elevating the homicide to Murder. The decision of the trial court sentencing appellants to reclusion perpetua and ordering civil indemnity was affirmed in toto.