G.R. No. 134634; July 31, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAZARO CLARIÑO, CONSTANTINO CLARIÑO, REYNALDO CLARIÑO, DANILO CLARIÑO, MARIANO COPE (at large), AGUINALDO CLARIÑO, (at large), QUIRICO CLARIÑO, JR. (at large), AVELINO COBETA @ “CUELA”, (at large), accused, LAZARO CLARIÑO, CONSTANTINO CLARIÑO, REYNALDO CLARIÑO, and DANILO CLARIÑO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Lazaro, Constantino, Reynaldo, and Danilo Clariño, along with four others at large, were charged with Murder for the killing of Jose Brosas. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Rodolfo Consulta, testified that on the night of September 9, 1995, he was in a tree catching bats near a makeshift hut in Sitio Sto. Cristo, Tiwi, Albay. From his vantage point, illuminated by a full moon and flashlights carried by some of the assailants, he saw the victim sleeping inside the hut. At around 11:00 PM, he saw eight men, including all four accused-appellants, approach the hut armed with bolos and pointed bamboos. Constantino Clariño first struck the sleeping victim with a bolo, after which the others joined in attacking him. The victim did not struggle. Consulta reported the incident to a barangay tanod the next morning but withheld the identities of the assailants out of fear; he only revealed their names to the police 15 months later, on December 16, 1996. The victim’s body, bearing multiple hack and stab wounds, was found buried in mud two days after the killing. The autopsy report indicated the victim was likely attacked while lying down. The defense presented an alibi, claiming all accused-appellants were at their aunt’s house attending and helping with novena prayers from the evening of September 9 until the morning of September 10. Their alibi was corroborated by a defense witness, Ernesto Diaz.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellants for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Rodolfo Consulta, who had a clear view of the crime and knew the accused-appellants personally, prevailed over the defense of alibi. The Court found Consulta’s testimony credible despite the delay in revealing the assailants’ identities, as the delay was sufficiently explained by his fear for his life. The defense of alibi was weak and not physically impossible, as the place of the novena was not so far from the crime scene as to preclude the accused-appellants’ presence at the locus criminis. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven because the attack was sudden and on a sleeping victim, rendering him defenseless. The Court upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each accused-appellant and the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs.