GR 28327; (September, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28327 September 14, 1973
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AYAMAN ABBOC, BITEL ABBOC and BERSAMIN ABBOC, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The three accused-appellants were convicted of murder for the fatal shooting of Lucagan Banig on January 27, 1965, in Sallapadan, Abra. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of the victim’s siblings, Dayapan Banig and Marcos Banig. Dayapan testified that the three appellants came to her house inquiring about the victim. Shortly after they left, she heard gunshots and her brother’s cry. She found him wounded, and he gave a dying declaration identifying Ayaman and Bersamin (Benjamin) as the ones who held him while Bitel shot him. Marcos Banig corroborated this, testifying that while rushing to the scene with a flashlight, he met the three appellants fleeing, with Bitel carrying a gun. The defense presented alibi, claiming Ayaman and Bitel were in a different town attending to a sick relative, and Bersamin was elsewhere branding cattle.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and in rejecting the defense of alibi, thereby finding the appellants guilty of murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the doctrine of appellate deference to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The Court emphasized that absent any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or misinterpreted, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court’s findings on credibility. Here, the trial court found the testimonies of Dayapan and Marcos Banig to be positive, clear, and unwavering. Their accounts were consistent, and the dying declaration was made spontaneously at the scene. Conversely, the trial court found the alibi defenses to be concocted and falsified. The distance between the crime scene and the alleged location of Ayaman and Bitel was merely three kilometers, easily negotiable, and their presence was positively contradicted by Marcos Banig’s identification. Bersamin’s alibi was likewise rejected. The appellants did not even challenge the trial court’s rejection of their alibi on appeal. The Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s conclusions. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, warranting a conviction for murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, but the civil indemnity was increased from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00.