G.R. No. 26708, September 29, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. ALEJO RESABAL

FACTS

In the early morning of April 25, 1926, Primo Ordiz was killed by a gunshot wound to the chest in his home in Maasin, Leyte. An information was filed charging Alejo Resabal with murder, committed with treachery, evident premeditation, and nocturnity. The trial court convicted Resabal of murder and imposed the death penalty, finding the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, nocturnity, and dwelling. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

The prosecution’s evidence established that Resabal had a motive arising from a dispute over a carabao that damaged Ordiz’s coconut trees. Witness Glicerio Orit testified that Resabal, armed with a revolver, invited him to Ordiz’s house to kill him. Orit saw Resabal open a window, after which Orit left and heard a gunshot. This was corroborated by the victim’s nephew, Jose Ordiz, who was awakened by an explosion and saw his uncle dying. The murder weapon (a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolver) was later recovered, hidden and wrapped in cloth that matched a piece found in Resabal’s trunk. Another witness, Carmelo Ordiz, testified that Resabal had also invited him to kill the victim, mistakenly believing Carmelo was still an enemy of the deceased. Resabal presented an alibi, claiming he was at home with his family at the time of the crime.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Alejo Resabal of murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty.

The Court found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish Resabal’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of Glicerio Orit and Carmelo Ordiz, though challenged by the defense, were credible. The Court held that Orit’s prior exclusion from the information to become a prosecution witness did not automatically discredit him, and minor contradictions in his statements did not impeach his testimony, especially as his prior statement was not read to him during trial for clarification. The recovery of the revolver, wrapped in cloth that matched a piece from Resabal’s possession, strongly pointed to his guilt. His defense of alibi was weak given the proximity of his house to the crime scene and the natural bias of his family witnesses. His conduct in helping with the victim’s burial was deemed an act to avoid suspicion, not proof of innocence.

The crime was murder qualified by treachery (*alevosia*), as the attack was made at night through a window, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. However, while the trial court found three aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation, nocturnity, and dwelling), the Supreme Court did not unanimously agree on imposing the death penalty. Under Act No. 3104, the death penalty required a unanimous vote. Due to the lack of unanimity, the Court modified the penalty to *cadena perpetua* (life imprisonment).

The decision was affirmed with the modification of the penalty to life imprisonment, with accessories, and an indemnity to the heirs.