G.R. No. L-55090 February 24, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORETO CANIZAR GOHOL, DOMINICO SIERVO y COLTA, and RUPERTO FERNAN y ARIPAL, defendants. DOMINICO SIERVO y COLTA and RUPERTO FERNAN y ARIPAL, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Eriberto Gohol was brutally stabbed to death in his Cebu City home on March 30, 1978. Initially, Dominico Siervo was charged with robbery with homicide based on witness affidavits. However, Siervo, in a handwritten statement, revealed the crime was a contract killing, identifying the victim’s wife, Loreto Gohol, as the mastermind and Ruperto Fernan as his accomplice. Consequently, the information was amended to charge Loreto Gohol with parricide and Siervo and Fernan with murder. During arraignment, Siervo pleaded guilty, but the trial court prudently suspended judgment and required the prosecution to present evidence to ascertain the degree of his culpability. Siervo then testified for the prosecution, providing a detailed account of the crime.
Siervo testified that Ruperto Fernan recruited him for the killing, promising a P4,000 payment from Loreto Gohol. He narrated that on the evening of the crime, Fernan led him to the victim’s house, where Loreto Gohol herself let them in. Under Fernan’s direction and threat, Siervo stabbed the victim. Afterward, Loreto Gohol gave him partial payment. Fernan, for his defense, presented an alibi, claiming he was in another town attending to his dying father-in-law at the time of the murder, a claim corroborated by a single witness.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of appellant Ruperto Fernan for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed Fernan’s conviction for murder. The Court found the testimony of co-accused Dominico Siervo, who had turned state witness, to be credible and sufficiently corroborated. This corroboration was established by the medico-legal report confirming the victim’s multiple stab wounds from more than one assailant and by the established motive provided by Loreto Gohol’s involvement. The Court emphasized that the testimony of an accomplice, when credible and corroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. In contrast, Fernan’s defense of alibi was deemed inherently weak. The Court ruled that for an alibi to prevail, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene. Fernan failed to prove this impossibility, as the distance between his alleged location and the crime scene did not preclude his presence. His alibi, supported only by the testimony of a single witness, could not overcome the positive identification and detailed narrative provided by Siervo. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was accorded great respect. Consequently, Fernan’s conviction was upheld, with the penalty modified to reclusion perpetua in line with the 1987 Constitution , and he was ordered to pay indemnity to the victim’s heirs. Siervo’s appeal was dismissed.