GR 97484; (August, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97484 August 11, 1995
SANTIAGO B. SERRANO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
On June 10, 1981, Agapito de Roxas was hacked to death while walking home with his son Efren in Batangas. Efren testified that petitioner Santiago Serrano suddenly emerged from an alley and repeatedly hacked his father. Agapito’s wife, Paciencia, also witnessed the attack after following their returning cow. Both positively identified Serrano, a barriomate, as the assailant. The autopsy revealed thirteen wounds, confirming a treacherous assault. The prosecution established motive through an altercation between Serrano and the victim two months prior.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Serrano was sleeping at home, corroborated by his wife and son. To discredit Efren, the defense presented a telegram allegedly sent to him on the day of the crime and a list of participants in a community work that excluded his name, suggesting he was not present. In rebuttal, Efren authenticated a contract for funeral services dated June 10, 1981, which he personally signed, proving his presence in town.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of petitioner for Murder based on the credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses over the defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core issue was credibility. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, finding the testimonies of eyewitnesses Efren and Paciencia de Roxas credible, consistent, and corroborated by the physical evidence of the wounds. Their positive identification of the petitioner as the assailant prevails over the weak defense of alibi. Alibi must demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the crime scene. Here, petitioner admitted his house was only half a kilometer away, making his presence at the crime scene not only possible but probable.
The defense’s attempt to prove Efren’s absence through a telegram and a participant list was successfully rebutted by the funeral contract, a contemporaneous document proving his presence. The Court also ruled that treachery (alevosia) was duly proven by the sudden and relentless attack, which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. While motive was established, it was not indispensable given the positive identification. The penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua as the proper indivisible penalty for Murder, and civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.