G.R. No. L-34851 February 25, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO URGEL alias “NANDONG”, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of November 23, 1969, in Javier, Leyte, Gualberto Guihapon and his wife Honorata Leonor were walking home from the market. Upon reaching a street corner, appellant Fernando Urgel, coming from behind, hacked Guihapon with a bolo. As Guihapon turned around, Urgel hacked him a second time on the face, causing him to fall to the ground where he later died. Urgel then walked away. The incident was witnessed by Honorata, who was about three meters behind her husband. The prosecution presented Urgel’s extra-judicial confession, sworn before a municipal judge, wherein he admitted to the killing.
The defense presented an alibi, with witnesses testifying that Urgel was at a novena in another barangay during the entire evening. Urgel also repudiated his confession, claiming it was extracted through maltreatment by a PC Sergeant who allegedly squeezed his fingers with cartridges. The trial court convicted Urgel of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) the credibility of the prosecution eyewitness versus the defense of alibi, and (2) the admissibility and voluntariness of the appellant’s extra-judicial confession.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court’s findings. On credibility, the Court emphasized that trial court assessments of witness demeanor are accorded great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of oversight or misappreciation. The appellant failed to make such a showing. The testimony of the widow, Honorata, was found credible despite her relationship to the victim; her proximity to the event and the traumatic shock explaining a delay in her formal statement were deemed sufficient. The defense alibi was properly rejected as it was not physically impossible for Urgel to be at the crime scene.
Regarding the confession, the Court ruled it was admissible. The appellant’s claim of coercion was not substantiated. The confession was sworn before a municipal judge who translated it into the Visayan dialect and ascertained its voluntariness. The appellant’s bare allegation of maltreatment, uncorroborated by evidence and presented only at trial, was insufficient to overcome the presumption of voluntariness attending a confession executed under oath before a judicial authority. The judgment was affirmed with the modification of increasing the civil indemnity to P30,000.00.