G.R. No. L-23558; August 10, 1967
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Marcelo Constantino, Gregorio Constantino, Hilarion Constantino and Fausto Constantino, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Marcelo, Gregorio, Fausto, and Hilarion Constantino, were convicted of murder for the death of Carlino Perdido. The prosecution’s version, upheld by the trial court, established that on June 24, 1963, Sabas Constantino (closely related to all appellants) was stabbed, with Inocencio Romaguera (brother-in-law of the deceased) as the suspect. On the evening of June 27, 1963, appellant Marcelo went to the deceased’s house, threatening him to produce Inocencio or be killed. The following morning, June 28, 1963, the deceased left home and was later found dead near a creek with multiple stab wounds. Three witnesses—Benjamin Balicat (aged 12), Nonito Salmazan (aged 13), and Quirino Callo—placed the appellants at the scene. Balicat testified he saw all four appellants, armed with bolos, chase the deceased toward the creek and later return with bloodied weapons. Salmazan and Callo saw the appellants coming from the direction where the body was found. Blood-stained bolos and a shirt were recovered from the appellants’ houses. The appellants raised the defenses of alibi (Marcelo, Fausto, and Gregorio) and self-defense (Hilarion). The trial court found them guilty and sentenced each to life imprisonment and indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in: (1) relying on the prosecution witnesses and rejecting the appellants’ defenses of alibi and self-defense; and (2) failing to appreciate mitigating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the trial court did not err in crediting the prosecution witnesses. The positive identification by witnesses, particularly the two young boys who gave sworn statements promptly after the crime, prevailed over the appellants’ alibi, which was not physically impossible and was uncorroborated or weak. Hilarion’s claim of self-defense was rejected as the nature, number, and location of the victim’s wounds contradicted his narrative and indicated a determined effort to kill. The prosecution proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with motive established as vengeance for the stabbing of their kin. On the second issue, no mitigating circumstances were applicable. Incomplete self-defense and unlawful provocation were inapplicable as Hilarion’s version was fabricated. Passion and obfuscation or vindication of a grave offense were not present as the killing occurred four days after the stabbing of their relative. The penalty of life imprisonment was correct, as the killing was qualified by superior strength, with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, warranting the medium period of the penalty for murder.