GR 97169; (May, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97169 May 10, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEOFILO KEMPIS, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Teofilo Kempis, then a member of the Philippine Constabulary, was charged with the murder of Lolito Rivero. The prosecution’s version, as credited by the trial court, states that on September 15, 1988, in Mayorga, Leyte, Kempis and a companion arrived at Rivero’s house on a motorcycle, both armed with armalite rifles. Kempis ordered Rivero to board the motorcycle, and when Rivero refused, stating he was cooking, Kempis fired his rifle at Rivero, hitting him multiple times and causing his death. The defense presented a different version, claiming the incident occurred on September 16, 1988, and that Kempis killed Rivero in self-defense. According to Kempis, he went to Rivero’s house to advise him against stealing and creating trouble. After Rivero promised to behave, Kempis turned to leave, at which point Rivero grabbed his M-16 rifle. They grappled for the weapon until it went off, hitting and killing Rivero. Kempis also interposed an alibi, claiming he was at a wake in Dulag, Leyte, on September 15, 1988. The trial court convicted Kempis of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, indemnifying the heirs of Rivero P30,000.00. Kempis appealed.
ISSUE
The primary issue revolves around the credibility of witnesses and the correct date of the incident, which impacts the viability of Kempis’s alibi and self-defense claims. Subsidiary issues include whether the trial court was biased and whether it erred in not considering the death certificate of the victim.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were clear, positive, and convincing. The defense’s claim that the incident occurred on September 16, 1988, was not substantiated. The Court held that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. The claim of self-defense was rejected as Kempis failed to prove the essential elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found no evidence of bias on the part of the trial judge. The indemnity was increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed with this modification.