G.R. No. L-21756 October 28, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORMAN VIÑAS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the evening of April 10, 1962, Jesus Varela was stabbed from behind while urinating beside a tree in the premises of the Bacolod Murcia Sugar Central, resulting in his death. The brothers Nelson and Norman Viñas, along with Rodolfo Sumpay, were charged with murder. The charge against Sumpay was later dismissed, and he became a prosecution witness. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros convicted both brothers and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Only Norman Viñas appealed.
The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses: Rodolfo Sumpay, who had been living with the Viñas brothers, and Mario Derla, a long-time friend of the brothers. Sumpay testified that on the night of the crime, Nelson informed him of their plan to kill Varela, and Norman said, “let us stab Jesus Varela.” When Sumpay protested, Norman insisted, stating Varela had committed a fault against him. Later, when Varela emerged from a nearby house, all five individuals (the two brothers, Sumpay, Derla, and Varela) went toward the plaza. Sumpay and Derla walked ahead and, from a distance, saw Nelson stab Varela with a curved knife. Derla corroborated this, adding that he and Sumpay were ordered by the brothers to watch and follow Varela, and he witnessed Nelson stab Varela from behind. Varela’s widow testified about previous conflicts between her husband and Norman Viñas, leading to Norman’s demotion and subsequent mauling incidents, after which Varela became cautious.
The defense, presented by Nelson Viñas (who did not appeal) and witness Oscar Parcon, claimed Norman was in Hinigaran attending a birthday party from April 8 to 11, 1962, and thus not present at the crime scene. Nelson’s version was that Varela attacked Sumpay with a knife, and Nelson, after being handed a knife by Derla, lunged at Varela to make him release Sumpay, not knowing where he hit him.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses and in finding accused-appellant Norman Viñas guilty of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court found the defense version artificial and inconsistent with physical facts, as it did not explain how Varela could be stabbed from behind in a frontal encounter or why he would attack three men unprovoked. Norman Viñas’s alibi was deemed insufficient because Hinigaran was only about 50 kilometers from Bacolod, making it physically possible for him to travel to the crime scene and back, and no convincing reason was given for his extended stay beyond the birthday celebration. The minor contradictions in the eyewitnesses’ testimonies were considered natural and indicative of veracity rather than prevarication, especially given that the witnesses were previously close to the accused and had no apparent motive to testify falsely against them. The circumstances, including the presence of both brothers at the crime scene, their remarks to Sumpay before the killing, and Nelson’s execution of the stabbing despite having no personal grudge against Varela, supported the trial court’s finding of conspiracy. Therefore, Norman Viñas’s guilt was upheld.