G.R. No. L-74737. July 29, 1988.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JACOBO ALCANTARA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jacobo Alcantara, was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court of Masbate for the killing of Manuel Ramirez. The prosecution established that on December 1, 1984, at around 1:00 a.m., witness Wennie Agpalza was present during a card game when he heard a gunshot. He immediately saw Alcantara holding a “lantaka” (a local gun) in a semi-squatting position by the window before fleeing. The victim, Manuel Ramirez, was hit. Agpalza recognized Alcantara due to sufficient lighting from a Coleman lamp and proximity. Police found Alcantara’s slippers at the scene. The murder weapon, borrowed from Claudio Cabarles, was later surrendered; its muzzle smelled of gunpowder and had fresh mud. Motive was established through the testimony of the victim’s widow, Estenely Ramirez, who recounted a prior altercation where Alcantara, resentful over a debt and his ejectment as a tenant, had previously fired at and stoned the victim’s house, openly threatening to kill him.
Alcantara interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was at home about ten kilometers away attending to his wife’s childbirth on November 30, 1984, as supported by a Certificate of Live Birth. He denied all prosecution allegations, including the ownership of the slippers and borrowing the gun. The trial court found the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence credible and convicted him, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Alcantara of Murder based on circumstantial evidence and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The trial court correctly relied on circumstantial evidence, which satisfied the requisites under the Rules of Court: there was more than one circumstance; inferences were based on proven facts; and the combination of all circumstances produced conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The proven circumstances included: (1) Agpalza’s positive identification of Alcantara at the scene immediately after the gunshot; (2) the recovery of Alcantara’s slippers at the crime scene; (3) the gun used was traced to him via Cabarles’s testimony and its physical condition; and (4) a clear motive arising from a prior violent altercation and threat. The defense of alibi was properly rejected. The birth certificate presented was only prima facie evidence and was reported months after the charge, suggesting an afterthought. It was contradicted by the testimony of Alcantara’s own sister-in-law, who stated the childbirth occurred weeks earlier. Furthermore, the distance of ten kilometers was not physically insurmountable, failing to establish the impossibility of his presence at the crime scene. The crime was qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and from a concealed position, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. However, applying the 1987 Constitution ’s abolition of the death penalty and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was reduced. The Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and reduced moral damages to P10,000.00.