GR 123130; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123130 ; October 2, 2000
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Nestor Mira, Jury Gonzales, Placido Gonzales, Jr., accused; Nestor Mira, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On May 30, 1987, in Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, victim Pedro Soguilon was working in a ricefield when he was attacked. Prosecution eyewitness Adriano Madeja testified that he saw appellant Nestor Mira suddenly hack Soguilon on the nape with a bolo. As the wounded victim ran, co-accused Jury Gonzales shot him with a shotgun. Subsequently, co-accused Placido Gonzales, Jr. approached and stabbed the fallen victim. The killing stemmed from a land dispute and prior animosity, including a theft case filed by the victim’s family against Jury Gonzales. Appellant Mira, however, presented an alibi, claiming he was at a drinking session at his father-in-law’s house some 50 meters away when he merely heard a gunshot and later saw Jury Gonzales fleeing.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant Nestor Mira’s guilt for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of his defense of alibi against the eyewitness account.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s conviction for Murder, modified the damages awarded, and ordered the issuance of alias warrants for his at-large co-accused. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Adriano Madeja to be credible, convincing, and sufficient to establish appellant’s direct participation in the killing. Madeja’s testimony was consistent on material points and was corroborated by the autopsy findings, which confirmed wounds corresponding to a hacking, a shotgun blast, and a stabbing. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as inherently weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing proof; it could not prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing as Murder. The attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim, who was stooping and working, of any chance to defend himself. The Court also awarded moral and actual damages in addition to civil indemnity, based on the evidence presented by the victim’s mother regarding funeral expenses and emotional suffering.