GR L 63862; (July, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-63862; July 31, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE ANDAYA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Vicente Andaya, was charged with the murder of Teresita Cervantes in Masbate on March 3, 1980. The information alleged that he attacked and hacked her with a bolo, inflicting fatal wounds. After pleading not guilty, the trial court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery, aggravated by the circumstance of an uninhabited place, and imposed the death penalty, leading to this automatic review.
The prosecution’s case rested on the positive testimonies of two witnesses. Eyewitness Francisco Masamoc testified that he saw Andaya chase and hack the victim. Edna Ternal corroborated this, stating she saw Andaya closely following the victim, armed with a bolo, shortly before the incident. The defense relied on alibi, claiming Andaya was at a coconut plantation about 500 meters away during the crime, supported by testimonies from his brother-in-law and another relative.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder based on the evidence presented and in imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The trial court correctly rejected the defense of alibi. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible prosecution witnesses. The requisite for alibi—that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene—was not met, as the place where Andaya claimed to be was merely 500 meters away. The testimonies of Masamoc and Ternal were consistent, credible, and corroborated by the medical finding that the fatal neck wound could have been inflicted from behind.
However, the Court found that the aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place was improperly appreciated, as the prosecution failed to prove the accused deliberately sought the location to facilitate the crime. With no other aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution , the death penalty was prohibited. The Court thus modified the decision, imposing reclusion perpetua and increasing the civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs to P30,000.00.