GR 229938; (February, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229938 . February 27, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH A. AMPO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Joseph A. Ampo was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Jerry L. Carillero. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Jelly Lagonoy, testified that around 2:00 a.m. on June 24, 2008, he saw Ampo and a co-accused flag down the victim’s motorcycle along the National Highway in Gingoog City. When the victim alighted and approached them, Ampo suddenly drew a knife and stabbed the victim in the stomach without any provocation. The victim later died from the wound. Lagonoy did not immediately report the incident but later executed an affidavit after learning the victim was the son of a neighbor.
The defense presented an alibi. Ampo claimed he was at a cousin’s house in another barangay until about 10:00 p.m. on June 23, after which he and his companion took a motorized tricycle to a different location, arriving by 10:45 p.m. He denied being at the crime scene at 2:00 a.m. A police officer, Josito Socias, corroborated that he helped Ampo board a tricycle around 10:15 p.m. but had no knowledge of Ampo’s whereabouts thereafter.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Ampo’s guilt for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Jelly Lagonoy credible, positive, and consistent. He had no ill motive to falsely testify against Ampo and provided a detailed account of the sudden and unexpected attack. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prevail, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. Ampo failed to establish this impossibility, as the locations involved were not so distant as to preclude his presence at the crime scene at 2:00 a.m. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven. The attack was swift and deliberate, employing a knife against an unarmed victim who was merely responding to a query, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. The Court sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages to the victim’s heirs.