GR 129532; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129532; October 5, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE HILOT (Deceased) and PATROCINIO BIHAG, JR., accused, PATROCINIO BIHAG, JR., accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Patrocinio Bihag, Jr., and his co-accused Vicente Hilot, were charged with Murder for the killing of Gedie Galindo on March 14, 1996, in Panaon, Misamis Occidental. The prosecution established that at around 10:45 PM, the victim’s parents, Gerundino and Edna Galindo, were awakened by Gedie’s cries. Gerundino rushed to the kitchen and saw Hilot holding a bloody knife and grappling with the already wounded Gedie. Gerundino subdued Hilot. Appellant Bihag then entered the kitchen and fatally stabbed Gedie in the neck. Both assailants fled. Prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s parents and a neighbor, positively identified Bihag.
The appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in a different city tallying bets for a gambling game at the time of the incident. He was corroborated by his common-law wife and another couple. In rebuttal, the prosecution presented a witness who testified to seeing appellant and Hilot walking away from the crime scene holding bloody knives. The trial court convicted appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and imposed the death penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of Murder and in imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, to be credible and conclusive, thereby rendering the defense of alibi untenable. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, especially when the appellant was not shown to be at such a distance that rendered it physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
The killing was correctly qualified as Murder by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any opportunity to defend himself. The Court, however, ruled that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not proven. The Information alleged the killing occurred “inside the residence,” but the prosecution failed to present evidence that the accused deliberately sought the seclusion of the victim’s dwelling to facilitate the crime. Mere commission of the crime inside a house does not automatically constitute dwelling as an aggravating circumstance; it must be shown that the accused took advantage of the seclusion.
With dwelling not appreciated, and no other aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law was an error, as it does not apply to crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua. The Court thus imposed reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was affirmed, exemplary damages were awarded due to the presence of treachery, and other damages were deleted for lack of evidentiary basis.