GR 28347; (January, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28347. January 20, 1971.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAN PROVO, ET AL., defendants, JOSE MESINA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On October 9, 1958, security guard Matignas Serrano was forcibly taken from his post at “Pisok” in Clark Field Air Base, Bamban, Tarlac, shortly after dusk by five men. His body was discovered two days later in a nearby sugarcane field with fatal fractures. The prosecution’s case against appellant Jose Mesina primarily relied on the testimonies of eyewitness Benita Mayuyu (the victim’s wife) and others. Mayuyu testified that she was at her husband’s post delivering a flashlight when five men, four masked, arrived. She positively identified the unmasked man as Mesina, whom she knew. She witnessed Mesina ask her husband for a cigarette, then grab his carbine while the masked men seized him, after which they dragged him away. Earlier that day, witnesses testified that Mesina had visited the victim’s brother, Anastacio Serrano, to request permission to steal “pipes” (electric cables) guarded by the victim, and uttered a threatening remark when refused.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jose Mesina was guilty of the crime of Murder for the killing of Matignas Serrano.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jose Mesina for Murder. The Court found the testimonial evidence, particularly that of eyewitness Benita Mayuyu, to be credible, positive, and convincing. Her identification of Mesina was deemed reliable as she knew him personally and had the opportunity to observe him clearly during the incident. The Court rejected Mesina’s defense of alibi, noting it was inherently weak and not physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene and later at a barrio meeting, given the proximity of the locations and the time gap. The alibi witnesses’ testimonies were found unpersuasive and failed to corroborate his claim effectively.
The legal logic centered on the evaluation of evidence. The Court held that the positive identification by a credible eyewitness prevails over an unsubstantiated alibi. The acts proven constituted Murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength, with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and evident premeditation. The Court modified the trial court’s decision by increasing the civil indemnity from P10,000 to P12,000 but otherwise affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as the requisite votes for the death penalty were not obtained. The acquittal of co-accused Pan Provo and Leonardo David by the trial court on reasonable doubt was not disturbed.