People vs. Pajares

Positive identification by a credible eyewitness prevails over alibi, and treachery qualifies a killing when the offender attacks the victim from behind without warning, ensuring the crime without risk from any defense the victim might make. The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense is not appreciated where about ten hours elapsed between the grave offense and the killing, enough time for the offender to recover his serenity.

Leandro Pajares, Diosdado Viojan, and Renato Perez lived in the same area in Paco, Manila, and Pajares knew Viojan as “Dado” and Perez as “Balat.” Perez testified that he and Viojan belonged to a group that was an adversary of Pajares’s group.

According to the prosecution, at about 11:30 p.m. on October 11, 1985, Renato R. Perez and Diosdado Viojan were walking abreast along Gomez Street, Paco, Manila, on their way to a store to buy something, with Viojan at Perez’s right and slightly ahead. Appellant Leandro Pajares suddenly appeared from behind and hit Viojan with a baseball bat at the back of his head. Viojan ran a short distance and fell near the store of Alex Blas. When Perez tried to help Viojan, Pajares struck him with the baseball bat at the back below the left shoulder. Perez grappled with Pajares for the bat, but Pajares’s companions — Rudy Dokling, Popoy, Inggo, and Lauro Duado — mauled Perez until he lost consciousness. Eugene Panibit and Joselito Perez brought Perez to the Philippine General Hospital, where he was treated for his injuries, and Perez later identified the baseball bat in court.

On October 12, 1985, Cpl. Benigno Dong of the Zamora Police Department Station No. 6, WPD, was on duty when Napoleon Gabawa sought police assistance regarding the killing on Gomez Street, Paco, Manila. The police went to Pajares’s house at 1453 Gomez St., Paco, Manila, and invited Pajares and his brother to the station for questioning; according to Cpl. Dong, Pajares verbally admitted his participation in the incident, which was recorded in the Police Blotter Entry. On cross-examination, Cpl. Dong admitted that he placed Pajares under arrest after the verbal admission, but the booking sheet and arrest report had not yet been accomplished. Salud Manguba, Forensic Chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation, examined the baseball bat for blood upon the written request of Pat. Conrado Bustillos and submitted Biology Report No. B-85-1342, which showed the absence of blood on the bat. Pat. Conrado G. Bustillos testified that, acting on a telephone call from the Philippine General Hospital on October 12, 1985, he went to the hospital morgue to investigate the dead-on-arrival case of Diosdado Viojan; the body had a fracture at the back of the skull. He then went to the scene, learned that Renato Perez was another victim, and investigated Perez, who executed a sworn statement; Roberto Pajares, appellant’s brother, was also investigated and executed a sworn statement. The alleged murder weapon, a baseball bat, was turned over to Pat. Bustillos by Cpl. Ben Macalindog.

Dr. Norman Torres, a resident physician at the Philippine General Hospital, testified that on October 12, 1985, Diosdado Viojan was brought to the emergency room for a head injury in the left occipital region and was in critical condition requiring immediate surgery; he did not personally attend the operation but learned that Viojan died while undergoing surgery, and he stated that the injury could have been caused by a blunt instrument like a baseball bat. Dr. Prospero Cabanayan, Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, conducted an autopsy and submitted Autopsy Report No. N-85-2161, which indicated the cause of death as “Hemorrhage, meningeal, severe, traumatic”; he testified that a single forceful blow against the head using a blunt instrument like a baseball bat could have caused the injury. Rosita S. Viojan, mother of the deceased, testified that she hired Tree Amigos Funeral Parlor for P12,000.00, as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 10511. Arlene Viojan, widow of Diosdado Viojan, testified that before the incident her husband worked with PEMCO earning about P500.00 a week, that she was three months pregnant at the time of the incident, that she gave birth to a baby girl, that her parents-in-law paid for the delivery expenses, and that she was living with her parents.

Pajares denied the allegations. He testified that he knew Diosdado Viojan as “Dado,” having met him once at the store, and Renato Perez as “Balat.” At the time of the incident, he was inside Alex Blas’s store with about eight other people watching television, so he did not see who hit Viojan and Perez. After the commotion, upon Alex Blas’s advice, he went home and slept. At about 3:30 a.m. on October 12, 1985, he was arrested inside their house and, without being asked any question, went with the arresting officers to the police station. At the police detachment, he was coerced to admit his participation because a gun was poked at him; he identified his signature on the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report but claimed he signed without being allowed to read its contents, without the assistance of counsel, and while being held at the collar at the back of his shirt. He also averred that during the investigation the policemen molested him by “pinipitik-pitik” his ears with a rubber band or chopping his neck with karate chops, although he admitted that after several days he did not complain. On cross-examination, he testified that his house was about five houses away from Alex Blas’s store and denied knowledge of any quarrel between his brother Roberto Pajares and Diosdado Viojan.

The RTC found Renato Perez credible, stating that he “gave his account on what was done to them by the accused and his companions in a simple, candid, straightforward manner.” It found that Pajares hit Diosdado Viojan with a baseball bat from behind without any warning, thereby precluding any possible retaliation from the victim. It also noted that Roberto Pajares had been mauled by the companions of the deceased at about 11:30 a.m. on October 11, 1985, as shown in the Police Blotter Entry and Roberto’s sworn statement, and that there was a lapse of about ten hours between that incident and the killing of Diosdado Viojan.

• Penalty: Appellant Pajares argued that the RTC gravely erred in imposing reclusion perpetua, averring that such penalty is tantamount to a cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment prohibited by the Constitution.
• Immediate Vindication: Appellant maintained that hours before the clubbing, his younger brother Roberto Pajares was mauled by Diosdado Viojan’s group, as cited by the lower court through the police blotter and Roberto’s sworn statement; the mauling was a grave insult to appellant and his family, so the clubbing of Viojan was a vindication of that grave offense, a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 5 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Age: Appellant pointed out that he was only nineteen years old at the time of the offense, so the penalty should have been seventeen years, four months, and one day.

• Alibi and Positive Identification: Whether appellant’s alibi can prevail over the prosecution eyewitness’s positive identification.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killing of Diosdado Viojan.
• Immediate Vindication: Whether the mauling of appellant’s brother about ten hours before the killing is a mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense.
• Penalty: Whether the SC should affirm the RTC’s imposition of reclusion perpetua for murder.

• Alibi and Positive Identification: No. Alibi is the weakest defense and cannot overcome positive identification, especially where appellant was within the vicinity of the crime scene.
• Treachery: Yes. The attack from behind with a baseball bat, without warning, ensured the killing without risk to appellant from any defense the victim might make.
• Immediate Vindication: No. The ten-hour interval between the mauling of appellant’s brother and the killing was sufficient for appellant to recover his serenity.
• Penalty: Yes. The SC affirmed the RTC decision, modifying only the indemnity to ₱50,000.00; the appeal was devoid of merit.

• Alibi and Positive Identification: The SC upheld the RTC’s credibility finding because the evaluation of witness testimony by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect; the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, while the appellate court only reads the cold print of the testimony. Renato Perez positively identified Pajares as the perpetrator. Alibi is the weakest defense and must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity; Pajares was within the vicinity of the scene. Alex Blas was not presented to corroborate Pajares’s testimony. Positive identification cannot be overcome by mere denial and establishes guilt beyond moral certainty.
• Treachery: The SC applied the rule that there is treachery when the offender adopts means, methods, or forms in the execution of the felony which ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Pajares hit Diosdado Viojan with a baseball bat from behind without any warning, thereby precluding any possible retaliation from the victim. The RTC correctly ruled that the crime was attended by treachery.
• Immediate Vindication: Even if Roberto Pajares was mauled by the companions of the deceased at about 11:30 a.m. on October 11, 1985, as shown in the Police Blotter Entry and Roberto’s sworn statement, there was a lapse of about ten hours between that incident and the killing of Diosdado Viojan. Such interval was more than sufficient to enable appellant to recover his serenity. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be appreciated in his favor.
• Penalty: The SC found the appeal devoid of merit and affirmed the RTC decision, modifying only the indemnity by increasing it to ₱50,000.00 in accordance with its policy. The RTC had convicted Pajares of murder under Article 248, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code and imposed reclusion perpetua with no modifying circumstance.

• Alibi — Alibi is the weakest defense an accused can concoct; to prosper, it must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission. The SC rejected Pajares’s alibi because he was within the vicinity of the crime scene and was positively identified by Renato Perez.
• Treachery — There is treachery when the offender adopts means, methods, or forms in the execution of the felony which ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The SC found treachery because Pajares hit Diosdado Viojan with a baseball bat from behind without any warning, precluding any possible retaliation from the victim.
• Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense — This mitigating circumstance under paragraph 5 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code is not appreciated where there is a lapse of about ten hours between the grave offense and the killing; such interval is more than sufficient to enable the offender to recover his serenity. The SC rejected Pajares’s claim because about ten hours had passed since his brother’s mauling.
• Credibility of Witnesses — The evaluation of the testimony of witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect because the trial court has the opportunity to observe them on the stand and detect if they are telling the truth or lying. The SC upheld the RTC’s finding that Renato Perez testified in a simple, candid, straightforward manner.

• “Alibi is the weakest defense an accused can concoct. In order to prosper, it must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of the commission.” — The SC used this rule to reject Pajares’s alibi because he was within the vicinity of the crime scene and was positively identified by Renato Perez.
• “There is treachery, the law says, when the offender adopts means, methods or forms in the execution of the felony which ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.” — The SC applied this definition to the unannounced attack from behind with a baseball bat.
• “Such interval of time was more than sufficient to enable appellant to recover his serenity.” — The SC used this to reject immediate vindication because about ten hours had passed since the mauling of Pajares’s brother.
• “The Positive identification of the accused by the witness as the perpetrator of the crime cannot be overcome by the mere denial of the accused.” — The SC held that Renato Perez’s positive identification defeated Pajares’s denial.

• People vs. Santito, Jr., G.R. No. 91628, August 22, 1991 [201 SCRA 87] — Relied on for the rule that the trial court’s evaluation of witness testimony is received on appeal with the highest respect.
• People vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 99258, September 13, 1991 [201 SCRA 616] — Relied on for the rule that the appellate court only reads the cold print of testimony and for the rule that positive identification cannot be overcome by denial.
• People vs. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 94320, September 4, 1991 [201 SCRA 317] — Relied on for the rule that alibi must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could have been physically present at the crime scene or its vicinity.
• People vs. Cuyo, G.R. No. 76211, April 30, 1991 [196 SCRA 447] — Relied on for the definition of treachery.
• People vs. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, December 17, 1976 [74 SCRA 271] — Relied on for the rule that a ten-hour interval was sufficient for appellant to recover his serenity, defeating immediate vindication.

• Article 248, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder; the RTC convicted Pajares under this provision and imposed reclusion perpetua, and the SC affirmed.
• Article 13, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — Provides the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense; Pajares invoked it, but the SC rejected it because about ten hours had elapsed since his brother’s mauling.
• Article 266, paragraph 1, and Article 27, Revised Penal Code — Define and penalize slight physical injuries; the RTC convicted Pajares under these provisions in Criminal Case No. 85-40580 and sentenced him to one month imprisonment, which the SC affirmed with modification only as to indemnity.