G.R. No. 114002 July 5, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELEUTERIO C. COMPENDIO, JR., alias “LOLOY,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Eleuterio Compendio, Jr. was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court for the killing of Cirilo Vitualla. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Trinidad Sabando, testified that in the early morning of August 18, 1989, in Baybay, Leyte, she saw the appellant, a pedicab driver, force Vitualla to alight near a gasoline station and then stab him on the left breast. She positively identified the appellant and the victim by the light of an electric bulb. The defense interposed alibi, with the appellant claiming he was asleep at home at the time of the incident. Other defense witnesses presented conflicting testimonies regarding the victim’s whereabouts and the circumstances of the body’s discovery, aiming to discredit Sabando’s account.
The trial court gave full credence to Sabando’s positive identification and rejected the alibi, finding the appellant could have been at the crime scene. It appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as the victim was unarmed and suddenly attacked. It also considered the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, citing a prior conviction for Frustrated Homicide, despite the prosecution’s failure to formally offer the judgment of conviction as evidence. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of Murder and in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime to Homicide and the penalty accordingly. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the eyewitness testimony as credible and sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. However, the Court found that treachery was not sufficiently proven. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack was commenced; the mere fact that the victim was unarmed does not, by itself, constitute treachery. The qualifying circumstance must be proven as clearly as the crime itself.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the trial court gravely erred in appreciating recidivism. An aggravating circumstance must be proven with at least the same quantum of evidence as the crime. The prosecution’s failure to formally offer in evidence the certified true copy of the prior judgment of conviction, despite an amendment to the information alleging it, meant recidivism was not proven. The appellant’s failure to object to the lack of evidence did not relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof. Consequently, with treachery and recidivism not established, the crime is Homicide, qualified by none and aggravated by none. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.