G.R. No. 133733; August 29, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MAXIMO AQUINDE, JAIME FAJARDO and MARIO GANSENIA, Accused. MAXIMO AQUINDE and MARIO GANSENIA, Appellants.
FACTS
On February 23, 1997, inside the Binalonan Public Market, the victim Ricardo Rosario, Jr. was shot and killed. Eyewitness Mario Rosario, the victim’s brother, testified that he saw appellant Mario Gansenia shoot the victim from behind, causing him to fall. Appellant Maximo Aquinde then approached the fallen victim and shot him twice more in the neck. Accused Jaime Fajardo stood guard nearby with a handgun. The three assailants then walked away casually. The police initially listed the assailants as unidentified, and Mario Rosario did not immediately come forward due to fear for his and his family’s safety. The autopsy report indicated multiple gunshot wounds. Appellants were charged with Murder and, for Gansenia, illegal possession of a firearm.
The defense presented alibis. Aquinde claimed he was at a different market at the time, supported by a friend’s testimony and a purported receipt. Gansenia alleged he was at a police station on the same day for a different case, presenting a subpoena. The trial court convicted both appellants of Murder, sentenced them to death, and ordered them to pay damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellants Maximo Aquinde and Mario Gansenia for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Mario Rosario credible, positive, and consistent. His relationship to the victim did not impair his credibility but rather lent credence to his account, as he would not accuse innocent persons of killing his brother. His initial reluctance to report the crime was satisfactorily explained by his genuine fear of retaliation. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene. Both appellants failed to establish this physical impossibility. The locations they claimed to be in were not so far from the crime scene as to preclude their presence. Their supporting documents, a receipt and a subpoena, did not conclusively prove their presence elsewhere at the exact time of the shooting. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, as the attack was sudden and from behind, rendering the victim defenseless. The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the death penalty, and adjusted the awarded damages accordingly.