GR 121203; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121203; April 12, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. DOMINADOR ASPIRAS alias “BOY”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of April 6, 1992, during a political rally in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, the victim Renato Lumague was delivering a speech on stage. Eyewitnesses Juanito Caballero and Victor Juguilon testified that accused-appellant Dominador Aspiras, a police officer, suddenly appeared in front of the stage and shot Lumague three times at close range. The victim died instantly. The prosecution established that the shooting was swift and unexpected, with the victim having no opportunity to defend himself. Aspiras was subsequently charged with Murder qualified by treachery.
The defense interposed alibi and denial. Aspiras claimed he was on duty in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, on the date of the incident, a fact corroborated by police colleagues and a station logbook. He also alleged that prosecution witness Caballero had a motive to falsely implicate him due to a prior land dispute. The trial court rejected the defense and convicted Aspiras of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of Murder despite his defense of alibi and the alleged incredibility of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by two credible eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevails over the defense of alibi. The Court found the testimonies of Caballero and Juguilon clear, consistent, and categorical regarding Aspiras’s presence and execution of the shooting. Alibi is inherently weak and must be supported by proof of the physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the crime scene. The defense failed to establish this impossibility, as the distance between Las Piñas and Pangasinan did not preclude Aspiras from traveling there. The alleged land dispute was deemed insufficient to discredit the eyewitness account.
Furthermore, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden, executed at close range against an unarmed victim who was engrossed in delivering a speech, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court modified the awarded damages for loss of earning capacity and actual expenses but sustained the conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua.