Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > February 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12718 February 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OLIMPIO CORPUZ and JULIAN SERQUIÑA

107 Phil 44:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12718. February 24, 1960.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLIMPIO CORPUZ alias ALIPIO and JULIAN SERQUIÑA, Defendants-Appellants.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for Appellee.

Braganza & Castillo for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. EVIDENCE; ALIBI; MUST BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. — In order to prosper, alibi, must be clearly established and must not leave any room for doubting its accuracy, plausibility and verity.

2. ID.; ID.; POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED. — An alibi cannot prevail over an identification of the accused which is substantially clear and satisfactory (People v. Aguipo, L-12123-34, July 31, 1958; People v. Moises y Fernando, Et Al., L-10876, September 23, 1958; People v. Dara-ug, L-11470, September 30, 1957).

3. ID.; ID.; PROOF OF MOTIVE; WHEN IT IS NOT INDISPENSABLE. — Proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise established by efficient evidence. In other words, motive need not be established if the identity of the accused is otherwise shown beyond reasonable doubt (People v. Sespene, 102 Phil., 199; People v. Divinagracia, 105 Phil., 281; People v. Arcillas, L-11792, June 30, 1959; People v. Bugagao, L-11328, April 16, 1958).

4. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; QUESTION OF TIME ESSENTIAL. — Evident premeditation cannot be considered to qualify murder where it is not shown when the plan to kill was hatched, or what time elapsed before it was carried out. There is, therefore, no basis for determining whether the accused had sufficient time between the inception of the plan and its fulfillment to dispassionately consider and accept its consequences; and this time is essential to premeditation (People v. Custodio, 97 Phil., 698.)

5. ID.; ID.; TREACHERY; SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED ATTACK. — The killing is qualified by treachery where the attack was sudden and unexpected because the deceased had his back turned when he was first struck on the back of the head at the inception of the aggression, catching him totally unprepared to make a defense of his persons. Under such circumstances, defendants-appellants employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to themselves (People v. Felipe, L- 4619, February 25, 1952; People v. Cagoco, 58 Phil., 524).


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicting defendants-appellants Olimpio Corpuz and Julian Serquiña of murder and sentencing each of them to the penalty of reclusión perpetua; to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Juan Tobias, in the sum of P4,000.00 and to pay proportionally the costs.

A review of the records discloses the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On the night of May 12, 1953, at around 9 o’clock in barrio San Leon, Balungao, Pangasinan, the occupants of the house of Juan Tobias were roused by the barking of dogs. Peeping from the side of the house, Francisco Bartolome, a nine-year old boy, and Pedro Quibolen, who helped Tobias work his lands, saw and recognized Julian Serquiña, and a little farther off, the other accused, Olimpio Corpuz, revealed by the light of a petroleum lamp hung outside the door. Juan Tobias invited defendants-appellants to come up, but instead, Julian Serquiña told him to come down and asked him to lead them to Esmeralda, "even up to the stream only" ; and when his request was refused, Julian Serquiña ordered Tobias to go ahead of him. When Tobias was already on the ground with his back turned to defendants-appellants, both of them struck Tobias several times with Exhibit "B", a shovel, and Exhibit "C", a handle of a plow, felling him. While running away, witnesses for the prosecution Pedro Quibolen and Francisco Bartolome still heard the deceased being struck repeatedly by defendants-appellants.

From the place of the killing, Pedro Quibolen and Francisco Bartolome ran to the house of Francisco Tobias, brother of the deceased, to call for help, but the latter, seized with fear, would not go to the scene of the crime but instead reported the killing first, to the Philippine Constabulary barracks nearby, and, in the early morning of May 13, 1953, to the municipal authorities who, after an investigation conducted at the scene of the crime, arrested both accused and brought them to the Municipal Building at about 11:00 a.m. The deceased Juan Tobias suffered multiple wounds, particularly described in Exhibit "A", the medical certificate prepared by Dr. Triumfo Magpali, Municipal Health Officer.

Defendants-appellants claim that they never left their respective houses on the night of May 12, 1953, and that, as a matter of fact, they went to sleep at about 7 o’clock that evening. This is sought to be corroborated for Olimpio Corpuz by the testimonies of Juan Corpus and Teofilo Ancheta, son and son-in-law, respectively, of Olimpio; and for Julian Serquiña, by the testimony of her sister, Felipa Serquiña, who claims that her brother never left their house on the night in question. This defense of alibi cannot be given much credence. By a long line of decisions, it has been held that, in order to prosper, alibi must be clearly established and must not leave any room for doubting its accuracy, plausibility and verity. Clearly, the alibi offered herein does not meet this test, for the only persons seeking to confirm the assertion of the accused that they never left their houses that night are very close relatives who would naturally testify in their favor. 1

Moreover, defendants-appellants were living only a short distance away from the house of the deceased Juan Tobias. As admitted by Olimpio Corpuz, his house was just around one kilometer from the house of Juan Tobias. For his part, Julian Serquiña estimated that he was residing about 1-1/2 kilometers from barrio San Leon where the killing took place. Due to their proximity to the place of the deceased, it could not have been impossible for the accused to go to the house of Juan Tobias and return to their houses at a later hour of the evening. As has been previously held, for an alibi to be given credence, it must clearly appear that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the place of the crime at the time it occurred. 2

Another factor weighing heavily against the defense of alibi put up by defendants-appellants is the fact that they have been clearly identified by the witness Pedro Quibolen and also by Francisco Bartolome. While the latter testified that the companion of Julian Serquiña that night was merely "very similar to Olimpio Corpuz", the testimony of Pedro Quibolen definitely identifying Olimpio Corpuz makes the evidence sufficient to establish also the latter’s identity, considering among other things that the witness was familiar with his features, having known him for years. An alibi cannot prevail over an identification of the accused which is substantially clear and satisfactory. 3

Indeed, there is no reason why the testimony of the witness Pedro Quibolen and Francisco Bartolome should not be believed, for, as admitted by both accused, there is no motive for these witnesses to testify falsely against them. This lack of a motive to make a false imputation against the accused further strengthens the credibility of the eyewitnesses and is one more factor that discredits the alibi relied on by the accused. 4 The record shows that the two accused were promptly arrested in the morning of May 13, 1953, and it can hardly be believed that between the killing done late in the previous night and the next morning, Pedro Quibolen and Francisco Bartolome, without any motive, could have connived to implicate innocent persons in a charge as serious as the one at bar. The early revelation of the identity of the killers which led to their prompt arrest bespeaks of a spontaneity of reaction not dictated by ulterior considerations.

The defense further alleges that there was no motive on the part of defendants-appellants sufficient to have induced them to commit the crime charged. It does appear of record, however, that the manager of the hacienda wherein the deceased and the accused Serquiña were tenants, proposed that both should exchange lots, but the plan fell through because of the objections of the late Tobias. Anyway, as repeatedly held, proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence. In other words, motive need not be established if the identity of the accused is otherwise shown beyond reasonable doubt. 5

The lower court found that the murder was qualified by evident premeditation. This is not borne out by the evidence in this case, because it is not shown when the plan to kill Juan Tobias was hatched, or what time elapsed before it was carried out. There is no basis for determining whether defendants-appellants had sufficient time between the inception of the plan and its fulfillment, dispassionately to consider and accept its consequences; and this time is essential to premeditation. 6

However, the record shows that the killing was qualified by treachery, for, aside from the fact that the attack was sudden and unexpected, the deceased Juan Tobias had his back turned when he was first struck on the back of the head at the inception of the aggression, catching him totally unprepared to make a defense of his person. Under such circumstances, defendants-appellants employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to themselves. 7

Although the crime was committed at nighttime, nocturnity is absorbed by treachery. 8

There is no evidence that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place because for this factor to be appreciated, it must be proven that there were no houses nearby; 9 but this was not done in this case.

There is no showing that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the deceased, it not appearing that the latter was attacked or killed in any part of the house or its dependencies.

Wherefore, with the modification that the killing is qualified by treachery instead of premeditation, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against defendants-appellants.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Endencia, Barrera and Gutiérrez, David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Masilungan, 104 Phil., 621; 56 Off. Gaz. (7) 1406; People v. Villaroya, 101 Phil., 1061; People v. de la Cruz, 76 Phil., 601; 43 Off. Gaz., 137; People v. Badilla, 43 Phil., 718.

2. People v. Saladino, No. L-11893, Prom. May 23, 1958; People v. Divinagracia, 105 Phil., 281; People v. Andam, L-11383, April 30, 1958.

3. People v. Aguipo, L-12123-34, July 31, 1958; People v. Moises Fernando, Et Al., L-10876, September 23, 1958; People v. Dara-ug, L-11470, September 30, 1957.

4. People v. Garciola, 90 Phil., 285; People v. Baltazar, L-5850, January 4, 1956.

5. People v. Sespene, 102 Phil., 199; People v. Divinagracia, 105 Phil., 281; People v. Arcillas, L-11792, June 30, 1959; People v. Bugagao, L-11328, April 16, 1958.

6. People v. Custodio, Et Al., 97 Phil., 698; 52 Off. Gaz., (4) 1999 and cases cited therein.

7. People v. Felipe, L-4619, February 25, 1952; People v. Cagoco, 58 Phil., 524; People v. Ambis, 68 Phil., 635.

8. People v. Jimenez, 99 Phil., 285; 54 Off. Gaz., (5) 1361; People v. Balines, Et Al., L-9045, September 28, 1956.

9. People v. Piring, 35 Off. Gaz., (13) 2272.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12802 February 11, 1960 - DALMACIO CABAÑERO, ET AL., v. MARCELO TESORO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13125 February 13, 1960 - PEDRO C. CAMUS v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13134 February 13, 1960 - MARIA C. ROA v. SEGUNDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-12322 February 19, 1960 - JOSE G. GENEROSO v. GSIS

    107 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-12525 February 19, 1960 - FRANCISCO A. TAN v. PEDRO M. GlMENEZ

    107 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. L-13573 February 20, 1960 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ET AL., v. ALHAMBRA EMPLOYEE’S ASSN.

    107 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-12791 February 23, 1960 - RAMON L. CHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-13553 February 23, 1960 - JOSE DE OCAMPO v. SERAFINA FLORENCIANO

    107 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. L-15096 February 23, 1960 - ENGRACIA P. LUCHAYCO, ET AL., v. HON. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-12718 February 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OLIMPIO CORPUZ and JULIAN SERQUIÑA

    107 Phil 44

  • G.R. Nos. L-14284-14285 February 24, 1960 - WILLIAM POMEROY, ET AL., v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-9759-61 February 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MOQUIADI, ET AL.

    107 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-12845 February 25, 1960 - ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. v. JOSE ROBLES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13161 February 25, 1960 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13280 February 25, 1960 - LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. HONORABLE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG ETC., AND LIM

    107 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-13828 February 25, 1960 - ELADIA RAPATAN, ET AL., v. ELPIDIO CHICANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-13964 February 25, 1960 - VICENTE ASPERILLA, ET AL., v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    107 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-14148 February 25, 1960 - ALFREDO PUA v. EULOGIO LAPITAN

    107 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. L-14322 February 25, 1960 - In re: TESTATE ESTATE of PETRONILA TAMPOY v. DIOSDADA ALBERASTINE

    107 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-11074 February 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFELINO ZAPATA and FERNANDICO TUBADEZA

    107 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-13048 February 27, 1960 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO., v. ANITA TAN and COURT OF APPEALS

    107 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-9920 February 29, 1960 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAUJAN, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO

    107 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-10184 February 29, 1960 - FELIX V. VALENCIA v. AUDITOR GENERAL, and GSIS

    107 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. L-11319-20; L-13504 & L-13507-8 February 29, 1960 - ANTONIO TUASON, JR., ETC. v. AUGUSTO DE ASIS

    107 Phil 131

  • G.R. Nos. L-11933-34 February 29, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC.

    107 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-12493 February 29, 1960 - GREGORIO I. ALCANTARA, ET AL. v. NORBERTO S. AMORANTO

    107 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-12727 February 29, 1960 - MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC. v. GAMES AND AMUSEMENTS BOARD, ET AL.

    107 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-12827 February 29, 1960 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD., v. PHILIPPINE MILLING CO.

    107 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-12863 February 29, 1960 - BERNARDO BENEDICTO v. IGNACIO CHIONG OSMEÑA

    107 Phil 163

  • G.R. Nos. L-12911-12 & L-13073-74 February 29, 1960 - PAZ MARQUEZ BENITEZ v. AMADOR D. SANTOS

    107 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-12942 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR MACATANGAY and DAVID CUNANAN

    107 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-12964 February 29, 1960 - SOL SAMONTE, ET AL. v. JUANA SAMBILON, ET AL.

    107 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-13006 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-13115 February 29, 1960 - TRINIDAD DE LOS REYES VDA. DE SANTIAGO v. ANGELA S. REYES and WCC

    107 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-13231 February 29, 1960 - ALBERTO INESIN, ET AL. v. HONORABLE MATEO CANONOY, ETC., AND BENODIN

    107 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-13284 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COLMENARES and CELSO LLORICO

    107 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-13367 February 29, 1960 - DAVID INCO, ET AL., v. GODOFREDO ENRIQUEZ

    107 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-13453 February 29, 1960 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL., v. COLL. OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    107 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-13474 February 29, 1960 - APOLONIO NICDAO v. GSIS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-13722 February 29, 1960 - QUIRICO ALIMAJEN v. PASCUAL VALERA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-13804 February 29, 1960 - PONCIANO PUNZALAN v. NICOLAS PAPICA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-13884 February 29, 1960 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. PRINCE LINE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. L-13922 February 29, 1960 - SEVERINO PONCE v. Co KING LIAN

    107 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. L-13927 February 29, 1960 - TRINIDAD MANAOIS-SALONGA v. IMELDA V. NATIVIDAD

    107 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-14120 February 29, 1960 - ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION v. HON. JUDGES JUAN LANTING, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-14226 February 29, 1960 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. JOSE M. LUNA

    107 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. L-14360 February 29, 1960 - JOSE BERNABE & CO., INC. v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC.

    107 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-14389 February 29, 1960 - AURORA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    107 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-14407 February 29, 1960 - ANACLETO ALZATE, ETC., v. BENIGNO ALDANA, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-14577 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES C. GALSIM

    107 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-14651 February 29, 1960 - HACIENDA SAPANG PALAY TENANTS’ LEAGUE, INC. and DOMINADOR GUEVAN v. NICASIO YATCO, ETC.

    107 Phil 306