G.R. No. 94570 September 28, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Domiciano Peralta, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The lifeless body of Rosita Peralta was found in her house in the early morning of March 2, 1982, with signs of strangulation. After investigation, an information for parricide was filed against her husband, Domiciano Peralta. The prosecution presented witnesses including Dr. Wilfredo Galan, who performed the autopsy; Atanacia Ramos, the victim’s mother; and Judge Juan B. Paaño, Jr., who took the sworn statement of the victim’s daughter, Siony. The defense presented the accused and Siony. Atanacia testified that Siony rushed to her house around 4:30 a.m., frantically reporting that the accused was strangling Rosita. They found Rosita dead, and Domiciano was absent. Domiciano claimed he was at his workplace at the time and later signed a confession at the police station without counsel. Siony, who had implicated her father in a sworn statement during the preliminary investigation, recanted in court, testifying she could not identify the strangler. Judge Paaño affirmed the regularity of the preliminary investigation and the voluntariness of Siony’s initial statement. The trial court, presided over by Judge Benjamin V. Panga (the fourth judge in the case), convicted Domiciano Peralta of parricide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, civil indemnity, and moral damages.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted Domiciano Peralta of parricide based on the evidence, particularly considering the recantation of the key witness (Siony) and the evaluation of evidence by a judge who did not preside over the entire trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. It held that Siony’s initial statement to her grandmother and during the preliminary investigation was credible and constituted part of the res gestae, as it was made spontaneously immediately after the startling occurrence, precluding fabrication. Her subsequent retraction was unreliable and an afterthought, influenced by her familial relationship with the accused, the lapse of time, and potential influence from her aunt. The appellant’s alibi was weak and uncorroborated, with his workplace being only a five-minute walk from the crime scene. The Court also ruled that Judge Panga could validly decide the case based on the transcribed stenographic notes despite not presiding over the entire trial. The extrajudicial confession was not considered as it was not formally offered in evidence. No mitigating or aggravating circumstances were appreciated. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and the civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.