GR 96766; (September, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96766 September 20, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO JARALBA and JALANDONI CORREGIDOR, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On October 30, 1986, around 7:00 PM, inside the Surigao del Norte National High School campus, eyewitness Diomedes Guibao saw his classmate Joselito Baltar followed by appellants Antonio Jaralba and Jalandoni Corregidor and an unidentified person towards the toilet. Guibao saw the appellants and their companion inside the toilet, taking turns stabbing Baltar with a “sundangay” while holding his arms. The toilet was illuminated by an outside light. Later that night, security guard Romeo Bulabog found Baltar’s body. Police investigators traced a trail of blood from the toilet to appellant Jaralba’s store, finding bloodstains on its steps and door. An autopsy revealed Baltar sustained 23 wounds, with the cause of death being shock and internal hemorrhage. Guibao reported what he witnessed to his teacher on March 6, 1987. Appellants pleaded not guilty. Jaralba claimed he was also stabbed by an unknown assailant in the toilet, while Corregidor presented an alibi, stating he was in Placer working on a mausoleum the entire day. The Regional Trial Court convicted both appellants of Murder.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in orally amending the information after arraignment and proceeding without re-arraignment.
2. Whether the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of eyewitness Diomedes Guibao.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused on reasonable doubt and not giving weight to the testimonies of the accused and their witnesses.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification.
1. The trial court did not err. The oral amendment merely changed the description of some wounds from “lacerated” to “stab” in the information to conform with the autopsy report. This did not change the offense charged (Murder), and thus re-arraignment was not necessary. No double jeopardy attached as appellants were not previously acquitted or convicted.
2. The trial court did not err in crediting Guibao’s testimony. The delay in reporting the incident does not impair credibility, especially given the witness’s fear. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are accorded the highest respect. The defense’s claim that Guibao harbored a grudge was unsubstantiated.
3. The trial court correctly rejected the defenses. Appellant Jaralba’s denial and Corregidor’s alibi are inherently weak defenses and cannot prevail over the positive identification by an eyewitness. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene, which was not established. The police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, and no improper motive was shown.
The appealed judgment is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the civil indemnity is increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.