G.R. No. 60490 November 14, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERGIO SERENIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of March 29, 1981, victim Perfecto Jacalan, accompanied by his wife Gregoria and friend Ruben Aranco, was walking to buy food when they passed in front of the appellant’s house. The accused, Sergio Serenio, suddenly appeared and fired a gun at Jacalan, hitting him in the left temple and causing his instantaneous death. Ruben Aranco attempted to help but was threatened by the armed appellant, forcing him to flee. Gregoria Jacalan witnessed the shooting and later heard the appellant’s wife ask why he shot them, to which Serenio replied dismissively. The police, responding to an alarm, arrested the intoxicated appellant in his house shortly after midnight, and he was positively identified by both eyewitnesses.
The defense presented an alibi, with Serenio and his wife Leonila testifying that he was asleep inside their house at the time of the shooting. Leonila claimed she heard a gunshot, saw a person flee, but did not wake her husband. Notably, Leonila also revealed that on the preceding night, a drinking session at their home had ended acrimoniously when the victim tore the cigarettes of Serenio’s guest, an act which outraged the appellant, providing a potential motive for the killing.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the trial court erred in: (1) convicting the appellant of Murder; (2) rejecting his defense of alibi; and (3) not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by two credible eyewitnesses, who were familiar with the appellant, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. For an alibi to succeed, it must be substantiated by strong corroboration and demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the crime scene. The defense failed on both counts, as the appellant’s house was adjacent to the crime location, making it easily possible for him to commit the act and return. The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and unexpected, executed at close range while the victim was unarmed and unaware, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailant.
Regarding intoxication, the Court ruled it was not a mitigating circumstance. The appellant failed to prove that his inebriation was so severe as to impair his willpower or mental faculties, or that it was not habitual or intentional to fortify his resolve for the crime. The mere fact of being drunk does not automatically mitigate liability. Consequently, the qualifying circumstance of treachery stood, sustaining the Murder conviction. The Court modified the civil indemnity, increasing it to P30,000.00, but affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.