GR 86816; (May, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86816 May 14, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUFINO SAGUN, JR. AND JIM SAGUN, accused, RUFINO SAGUN, JR., accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of January 30, 1982, at a pre-nuptial dance in Bayambang, Pangasinan, accused-appellant Rufino Sagun, Jr. and his co-accused Jim Sagun approached the victim, Lito Roque. Without warning, Jim Sagun boxed the victim, causing him to fall. As the victim tried to stand up, Rufino Sagun, Jr. stabbed him once in the abdomen with a balisong. The victim died days later from his injuries. Prosecution witnesses Joseph Camacho and Rafael Gabriel, who were approximately two meters away and under sufficient illumination from the dance hall, positively identified the appellants as the assailants.
The defense presented an alibi, with appellant claiming he was in Pasig, Metro Manila, drinking beer with a friend at the time of the incident. After his arrest in 1985, an amended Information was filed to include him and allege conspiracy. The Regional Trial Court convicted Rufino Sagun, Jr. of Murder, sentencing him to “life imprisonment.” His co-accused, Jim Sagun, remained at large. Appellant appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of Murder based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding no reversible error. Prosecution witnesses Camacho and Gabriel gave straightforward, categorical, and consistent testimonies on the material points of the assault. Their positive identification of the appellant was reliable, as they knew him prior to the incident and had a clear view under well-lit conditions. No ill motive was shown for them to falsely testify.
The Court dismissed the defense’s attempt to discredit the witnesses based on the initial police report that the assailant was unidentified and minor inconsistencies in Gabriel’s affidavit versus his court testimony. Judicial notice was taken of the common reluctance of witnesses to immediately come forward. Affidavits are often incomplete and are considered inferior to court testimony given under oath and cross-examination. The appellant’s defense of alibi, inherently weak, must yield to the positive identification by credible witnesses. The penalty is corrected to reclusion perpetua in accordance with the Revised Penal Code. Civil indemnity of P30,000.00 is awarded to the victim’s heirs.