G.R. No. 91756 May 11, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Raul Escoto y Gonzales and Dominador Escoto y Cruz

FACTS

The prosecution’s case, primarily through eyewitness Mabina Cuales Vda. de Torno, established that on April 10, 1985, brothers Wilfredo and accused-appellant Dominador Escoto went to the Torno residence looking for Alfred Torno. After being denied entry, they left but Wilfredo shouted a death threat. The brothers then encountered Alfred’s brother, Robert Torno, walking alone. They chased, caught, and stabbed him. Mabina testified she saw Wilfredo stab Robert first, and then Dominador also stabbed him while holding the victim. Raul Escoto, the father, was seen nearby shouting for his sons to run after they had “finished.” Robert Torno died from twelve stab wounds. Only Raul and Dominador were charged in the information, as Wilfredo remained at large.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Dominador claimed he was at his grandmother’s house in Manila at the time of the incident, while his father, Raul, asserted they were together in Novaliches, Quezon City, working on a furniture order. Their alibi was corroborated by their customer, Ester Ramos. The trial court convicted Dominador Escoto of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, but acquitted Raul Escoto due to reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Dominador Escoto for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide and adjusted the penalty. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Mabina Cuales, who had no motive to falsely testify, to be credible and sufficient to establish Dominador’s participation in the killing. Her testimony that Dominador held the victim while Wilfredo stabbed him, and that Dominador himself then stabbed Robert, proved conspiracy by direct participation. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected, as the appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, which was near his grandmother’s house.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution evidence did not clearly show that the mode of attack was consciously adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. The attack arose from a chance encounter after a heated argument, and the victim was chased, indicating he may have been aware of the danger. Absent clear proof of treachery, the crime is homicide, not murder. The Court thus imposed an indeterminate sentence of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and increased the civil indemnity to P50,000.00.