G.R. No. L-20913 February 27, 1969
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Filomeno Vacal and Fidencio Vacal, defendants, Filomeno Vacal, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Filomeno Vacal and Fidencio Vacal were accused as principals for the murder of Ignacio Ruiz. Only Filomeno Vacal was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte; Fidencio Vacal was acquitted due to insufficient evidence identifying him as the carbine-armed companion. The incident occurred around 10:00 PM on March 20, 1960, on a trail from Katubilian to Katong, Hinunangan, Southern Leyte. Four men—Hilario Baclayon, Ignacio Ruiz, Nemesio Musico, and Serapio Humangit—were walking single file when Filomeno Vacal suddenly appeared near the right side of Ignacio Ruiz and shot him dead with a pistol. Baclayon, Musico, and Humangit positively identified Filomeno Vacal as the assailant, knowing him very well. There was credible evidence of enmity between the appellant and the victim over a parcel of coconut land. Filomeno Vacal had previously filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft against Ignacio Ruiz, which was dismissed as civil in nature. The autopsy report concluded that Ignacio Ruiz died from a single perforating gunshot wound, with the assailant positioned at the victim’s right side, slightly lower, and not far due to the presence of gunpowder burns. The lower court found the killing attended by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity offset by the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The appellant contested the sufficiency of his identification, arguing the night was dark and the witnesses did not immediately report the crime, and presented an alibi defense supported by his brother Fidencio and Pio Mangaron, claiming he was at a party in the poblacion at the time. However, none of the prominent persons allegedly present at the party testified to support the alibi.

ISSUE

Whether the identity of Filomeno Vacal as the assailant was sufficiently proved, and whether the qualifying and mitigating circumstances were correctly appreciated by the lower court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the indemnity. The identity of Filomeno Vacal as the assailant was sufficiently proved by the positive testimonies of three eyewitnesses who knew him well and recognized him under a starry night with fair visibility. Their failure to immediately report the crime did not negate their positive identification. The appellant’s defense of alibi was rejected as weak and uncorroborated by independent witnesses, notably the Mayor and other prominent persons who did not testify. The Court upheld the lower court’s finding of treachery, as the sudden pistol shot offered the victim no chance to defend himself. However, it found that the lower court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, as there was no evidence the accused purposely sought the nighttime, and the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, as there was no evidence to establish it. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and the indemnity to the heirs of Ignacio Ruiz was increased from P3,000 to P12,000.