GR L 55252; (December, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-55252, December 26, 1984
People of the Philippines vs. Marcial Abucay and Salvador Pepito alias “Bading”
FACTS
On the evening of September 15, 1979, during a fiesta dance in Liloan, Cebu, the victim Segundino Garbo was conversing with appellant Salvador Pepito regarding boat-building. Pepito was accompanied by Marcial Abucay, who held a grudge against Garbo due to a prior apprehension. After about thirty minutes of conversation, Pepito and Abucay suddenly and simultaneously stabbed Garbo. Pepito struck the victim’s right shoulder, while Abucay stabbed him on the bridge of the nose. The victim’s wife, Clarita Garbo, and brother, Benjamin Garbo, witnessed the attack. As he was being aided, the dying victim identified Pepito and Abucay as his assailants to his wife, brother, and another witness, Samuel Igot. Garbo succumbed to his wounds shortly thereafter.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution evidence proved the guilt of appellant Salvador Pepito beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant’s claim of reasonable doubt, primarily based on the alleged ambiguity of the medical evidence, was rejected. The examining physician, Dr. Felipe Vista, testified that while he could not definitively state whether one or two bladed instruments were used, both wounds were inflicted by sharp instruments. This testimony did not create ambiguity favorable to the defense but was consistent with the prosecution’s theory of two assailants using separate weapons. The Court emphasized that the positive identification by three eyewitnesses—Clarita Garbo, Benjamin Garbo, and Samuel Igot—who consistently named Pepito as one of the attackers, prevailed over any speculative doubt. The trial court’s assessment of their credibility was accorded great respect.
Furthermore, the defense of alibi presented by co-accused Abucay to exculpate Pepito was deemed an unreliable last-minute concoction, as it was never previously disclosed to authorities. The Court also held that proof of motive was not essential for conviction since the identity of the perpetrator was firmly established by credible eyewitness testimony. The appealed decision was affirmed with modification, ordering the appellant to pay an indemnity of P30,000.00 to the heirs of the victim.