GR L 29215; (March, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29215. March 27, 1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO ENTIENZA, TEODULO ABRIGANA and AGAPITO ENTIENZA, accused, TEODULO ABRIGANA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
During a barrio fiesta in Dalaguete, Cebu, a confrontation occurred between the group of Julian Entoma and appellant Teodulo Abrigana, leading Patrolman Paz to chase Abrigana. Later that night, as Julian Entoma, his son Celso, and their family were walking home, Dionisio Entienza suddenly stabbed Celso from behind. While Celso lay dying, appellant Abrigana emerged and stabbed Julian Entoma in the back. Julian was brought to a house where he gave a dying declaration, naming Abrigana as one of his assailants, before succumbing to his wounds at the hospital.
At trial, prosecution eyewitnesses, including Julian’s daughter and daughter-in-law, positively identified Abrigana. The defense presented alibi, claiming Abrigana was fleeing from Patrolman Paz when the stabbing occurred and had no participation. Dionisio Entienza, a co-accused, later attempted to assume sole responsibility for Julian’s killing, but the trial court found this incredible, noting his prior sworn statement implicating Abrigana in a conspiracy.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellant Teodulo Abrigana for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the alibi of Abrigana untenable. For alibi to prevail, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene. Abrigana admitted being near the chapel, and the Court agreed with the trial judge that he could have easily returned to the ambush site. His identity was firmly established by multiple eyewitnesses who knew him well and by the victim’s dying declaration, which the Court found credible.
The Court upheld the finding of treachery. Abrigana deliberately attacked Julian Entoma from behind without warning, ensuring the execution without risk to himself and leaving the victim defenseless. This qualified the killing as murder. Nocturnity was absorbed by treachery, and premeditation was not proven. With no modifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correct. The Court modified the civil indemnity, increasing it to twelve thousand pesos. The appealed decision was affirmed with this modification.