People vs. Simene

Treachery qualifies a killing to murder where the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to defend himself, and a conviction may rest on the credible testimony of an eyewitness who identifies the accused immediately after the attack, even if the witness did not see the precise moment of impact, provided the accused is placed at the scene holding the weapon with no other person present.

Melchor Simene and the Remotigue family were residents of Punta, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte. The accused was known to the prosecution's principal eyewitness, Cesar Patac, for approximately five years prior to the incident. The case arose from an information charging Simene with murder under Article 248, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, with treachery and evident premeditation as alleged aggravating circumstances, for the killing of Mario Remotigue on October 1, 1980.

On the evening of October 1, 1980, at Punta, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, the son of Melchor Simene passed by the house of the Remotigue family, beaming a flashlight at Ronald Remotigue. Ronald cautioned the boy not to flash the light directly at his face, but the son did not heed the request, prompting Ronald to pick up a stone and hurl it at him. Ronald missed. The boy reported the matter to his father, who immediately went looking for Ronald.

Simene found Ronald at about six o'clock that evening and confronted him about the thrown stone. An altercation ensued, escalating into a fistfight that lasted about two minutes. Teofilo Remotigue, Ronald's father, was atop a coconut tree gathering tuba at the time. When Teofilo descended, both Melchor and Ronald were no longer in the vicinity.

At around seven o'clock, Mario Remotigue, Teofilo's son, left their house to visit the house of Fernando Patac. While Mario was walking with Cesar Patac and Herminigildo Simbajon from the cemetery of Nasipit, somewhere near Cesar Patac's house, Simene clubbed Mario from behind using a round piece of wood called "olise," striking the victim on his right ear. Cesar Patac, who was walking ahead of Mario, heard the impact and immediately turned around. He saw Simene holding the piece of wood with both hands in a position like a person swinging a baseball bat, and observed the victim staggering. After hitting Mario, Simene passed by Cesar and Herminigildo, still carrying the weapon. There was a light in the yard of Cesar Patac that enabled him to see the attacker clearly, and Cesar had known Simene for five years.

Cesar and Herminigildo helped Mario head home. At their house, Teofilo asked Mario what had happened to his ear, and Mario answered that he was clubbed by Melchor Simene. Mario then vomited and fell to the floor. He was first brought to St. Christopher Hospital in Nasipit but, owing to his serious condition, was transferred to Butuan Doctor's Hospital in Butuan City, where he expired at 2:30 p.m. on October 2, 1980. Dr. Alfredo M. Noriega, who attended to Mario at the Butuan Doctor's Hospital, found that the cause of death was a head injury inflicted by a blunt instrument, which caused a skull fracture and bleeding from the eyes.

Simene was arraigned on November 27, 1981 and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court convicted him of murder. The defense presented a denial and alibi, but the records did not establish that it was physically impossible for Simene to be at the crime scene. The trial judge who rendered the decision, Judge Dabaloc, had personally heard the defense witnesses testify, although the prosecution witnesses had been heard by a predecessor judge.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Simene argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specifically questioning the credibility of Cesar Patac, who could not have seen the clubbing because he was walking in front of the deceased when the incident occurred.
• Reasonable Doubt: Simene maintained that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court should have given weight to the defense's version of events, which he claimed was consistent with the truth.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether the testimony of prosecution witness Cesar Patac, who was walking ahead of the victim and turned around upon hearing the impact, sufficiently identified the accused as the perpetrator.
• Defense of Alibi and Denial: Whether the accused's defense of denial and alibi can overcome the positive identification by the prosecution eyewitness.
• Validity of Judgment by a Substitute Judge: Whether a judge who did not personally hear the prosecution witnesses testify may render a valid judgment of conviction.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery: Whether treachery was present to qualify the killing to murder.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Yes. Patac's testimony was credible; he turned around upon hearing the impact and saw the accused holding the weapon in a striking position, with no other person present besides the victim and their two companions.
• Defense of Alibi and Denial: No. The defense of alibi was rejected because the accused failed to show it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, and positive identification by a credible witness prevails over denial and alibi.
• Validity of Judgment by a Substitute Judge: Yes. A judge who succeeds another and renders judgment based on the transcripts and his own observation of the defense witnesses may validly convict, the factual findings of the trial court being entitled to acceptance on appeal absent any showing of arbitrariness.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery: Yes. Treachery was present because the attack from behind was so sudden and unexpected that the victim was unable to defend himself.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Patac testified that upon hearing the impact of the clubbing, he immediately turned around and saw Simene holding a piece of wood with both hands in a batting position, with the victim staggering. Even assuming Patac did not see the very act of clubbing, the circumstantial evidence pointed unmistakably to the accused: aside from the deceased, Patac, and Simbajon, nobody else was around except Simene, who was seen immediately after the impact holding the weapon and then running past them. Patac had known Simene for five years and could not have been mistaken as to his identity. A light in the yard of Cesar Patac enabled clear visibility. No motive was shown why the witness would testify falsely, while the accused had a clear motive — Ronald Remotigue had thrown a stone at Simene's seven-year-old son, provoking an altercation and fistfight, and Mario was a member of the family Simene believed had wronged his son. The victim's father corroborated Patac's testimony, relating that Mario told him he was clubbed by Melchor before lapsing into unconsciousness.

• Defense of Alibi and Denial: The defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. The records did not show that Simene could not possibly have been at the scene of the crime. In fact, even as the prosecution placed him at the scene, the defense failed to show his whereabouts at the time. For alibi to be believed, it must appear not only that the accused was at some other place but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime, a requirement not satisfied here.

• Validity of Judgment by a Substitute Judge: Judge Dabaloc personally heard the defense witnesses testify and was able to observe their demeanor, and was not convinced by their manner of testifying. It is not unusual for a judge to try a case on the basis of transcripts. The fact that another judge heard the prosecution witnesses does not disqualify the succeeding judge from rendering a valid decision. The factual findings of the trial court, including the assessment of witness testimony, are entitled to acceptance on appeal absent any showing that they are arbitrary and without basis, and no such showing was made.

• Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery: Treachery is present when the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim would be unable to defend himself. Simene clubbed Mario from behind while the victim was walking, giving him no opportunity to anticipate or repel the attack. This sudden and unexpected assault qualified the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Treachery is present when the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim would be unable to defend himself. In this case, the accused clubbed the victim from behind while the latter was walking, giving no opportunity for defense, thus qualifying the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Requirements of Alibi as a Defense — For the defense of alibi to be believed, it must appear not only that the accused was at some other place but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. The defense failed to satisfy either requisite, as it did not even establish the accused's whereabouts at the time of the incident.

• Credibility of Eyewitness Identification — A witness who has known the accused for years and who sees the accused immediately after the attack holding the weapon, with no other person present, provides credible identification. The absence of any motive to testify falsely strengthens the witness's credibility.

• Judgment by a Substitute Judge — A judge who succeeds another and did not personally hear all the witnesses may still render a valid judgment based on the transcripts of stenographic notes and his own observation of the witnesses he did hear. The factual findings of the trial court are entitled to acceptance on appeal absent a showing of arbitrariness.

• "If the defense of alibi is to be believed, it must not only appear that the accused was at some other place but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime." — This passage states the two-pronged test for the defense of alibi, a doctrine consistently applied in Philippine criminal jurisprudence.

• "Treachery is present when the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim would be unable to defend himself." — This is the canonical formulation of treachery relied upon by the Court to qualify the killing to murder, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "The fact that another Judge heard the prosecution witnesses does not disqualify the Judge who succeeds him from rendering a valid decision." — This passage establishes the principle that a substitute judge may validly decide a case based on transcripts, an important procedural doctrine in Philippine trial practice.

• People vs. Magdueno, 144 SCRA 210 (1986) — Cited for the proposition that the absence of any motive on the part of a prosecution witness to falsify the truth strengthens the witness's credibility.

• People vs. Torres, G.R. No. 76238, January 11, 1990 — Cited for the principle that where there is no showing that a witness had any motive to testify falsely against the accused, the witness's testimony is entitled to credence.

• People vs. Asuncion & Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 83870, November 14, 1989 — Cited for the two-pronged requirement of alibi: the accused must show he was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, citing in turn People vs. Aquino, 133 SCRA 283.

• People vs. Roa, 167 SCRA 117 (1988) — Cited for the rule that where circumstantial evidence is sufficiently established, direct evidence of the actual stabbing is not necessary.

• People vs. Escalante, 131 SCRA 237 (1984) — Cited for the principle that it is not unusual for a judge to try a case on the basis of transcripts of stenographic notes.

• People vs. Maravilla, 167 SCRA 645 (1988) — Cited for the definition of treachery: present when the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim would be unable to defend himself.

• People vs. Espinosa & Jundoy, G.R. No. 72883, December 20, 1989 — Cited for the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, including assessment of witness testimony, are entitled to acceptance on appeal absent a showing of arbitrariness.

• Article 248, paragraph (1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of murder. The accused was convicted under this provision, with treachery as the qualifying circumstance, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Fernan, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concurred.