G.R. No. 86436 August 4, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jovencio de Paz, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging Jovencio de Paz, Silverio Mijares, Jr., and Telesforo Almaden with Murder. The prosecution alleged that on August 13, 1983, in Barangay Salvador, Tanauan, Leyte, the accused, conspiring and taking advantage of superior strength and with treachery, attacked and assaulted Floro Florendo with deadly weapons, inflicting multiple wounds that caused his death. Only Silverio Mijares, Jr. was initially arrested; he pleaded guilty to homicide and was convicted. Accused-appellant Jovencio de Paz was later arrested in Manila and pleaded not guilty.
The trial court found that at around 2:30 P.M. on August 13, 1983, while the victim Floro Florendo, his wife Anacorita, and their three children were cleaning their garden, accused-appellant Jovencio de Paz, together with Silverio Mijares, Jr. and Telesforo Almaden, all armed with long bolos, approached and surrounded the victim. Accused-appellant hacked the victim’s breast. The victim retreated but fell. As he lay defenseless, Mijares and Almaden hacked him in different parts of his body. Anacorita and her children, about five meters away, shouted for help and pleaded for the victim’s life. Anacorita attempted to defend her husband but retreated when Mijares turned toward her. The assailants then left. An autopsy revealed multiple incised and amputating wounds, with the cause of death being shock due to profuse hemorrhage.
The defense presented denial and alibi. Accused-appellant claimed he left for Manila at around 2:00 P.M. on August 13, 1983, a claim corroborated by Juan Tangpus. He admitted his father and the victim had a land dispute. Silverio Mijares, Jr., already convicted, testified he was the lone assailant, a claim corroborated by barangay councilman Antonio Copino.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Anacorita and Myrna Florendo, and in rejecting the defense of alibi and the claim that Mijares acted alone.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and indemnity. The trial court did not err in crediting the prosecution witnesses. The fact that Anacorita and Myrna were the wife and daughter of the victim does not automatically impair their credibility, especially in the absence of evidence showing improper motive. Their positive identification of accused-appellant, whom they knew as neighbors, is credible. Their natural reaction to help and defend the victim, despite danger, bolstered their testimonies.
The defense of alibi must fail. Accused-appellant was positively identified, and he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The corroborating witness’s testimony was deemed unreliable due to his admitted inability to tell time accurately. The claim that Mijares acted alone was contradicted by the positive and consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
The Supreme Court held that the penalty for Murder qualified by treachery is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With no generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is inapplicable. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The death indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision was MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Jovencio de Paz is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Floro Florendo in the amount of P50,000.00.