People vs. Villapando

Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification where the accused fails to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene; and absent proof of treachery or intent to kill, the killing is only simple homicide and the stabbing of intervenors gives rise only to physical injuries.

At around 6:00 p.m. on January 14, 1979, Ramon Tolentino, Nelia Panganiban, and Alicia Beron went to the BLTB Co. bus terminal in Batangas City to take a bus bound for Manila. Romulo Manalo, Alicia’s boyfriend, accompanied them to see Alicia off. Upon reaching the terminal, Nelia, Alicia, and Romulo boarded a parked bus while Ramon went to the terminal counter to secure student fare discounts. The trio proceeded to the back of the bus, where Nelia and Alicia seated themselves.

While inside the bus, Romulo got into an argument with Rogelio Villapando y Bunsol, the accused, who was seated in front of the girls’ seats. Romulo then turned toward the bus door to alight, and Villapando followed him. Near the door, Romulo and Villapando exchanged fist blows, and they continued trading blows on the ground. Suddenly, Villapando pulled out a fan knife and stabbed Romulo. Upon seeing this, Alicia and Ramon approached to break up the fight. As Alicia embraced Romulo, Villapando lunged at her three times with the knife; the first two blows landed near the base and bottom of her handbag, and the third struck her right forearm. Ramon, who was pulling Romulo away, was also stabbed twice on the right arm. Villapando then ran toward the public market; Ramon chased him but gave up at the market entrance because it was already dark.

Romulo died from the stab wound on his chest, which penetrated his chest wall and caused cardiac arrest. Ramon sustained two stab wounds on his right forearm that incapacitated him from regular work for more than one month. Alicia suffered a stab wound on her right arm that prevented her from performing her customary duties for nine days.

Villapando interposed alibi. He claimed that he and his kumpadre Romy Acedillo were at the cockpit in San Pablo City at the time of the incident; thereafter, on their way to Acedillo’s house, he purchased a Seiko watch from his winnings, and the store issued him a guarantee book dated January 14, 1979. He also presented Paquito Sorizo, who testified that Villapando was not the victims’ assailant. The RTC discredited the alibi as weak and Sorizo’s testimony as biased and without probative value. The RTC found that Sorizo was always present during the hearings, attended a conference with defense counsel at Letty’s Restaurant upon the request of Villapando’s wife, and, despite claiming to be only two brazas away as a janitor of the BLTB Co., did not try to prevent the struggle or help the victims and did not execute any written statement after the incident. The RTC also observed his demeanor on the witness stand.

The prosecution witnesses identified Villapando. Ramon Tolentino testified that he saw Villapando stab Romulo, that Villapando turned on him and stabbed him twice, and that he chased Villapando toward the old public market. Nelia Panganiban testified that from the bus window she saw Villapando stabbing Romulo and that she pointed him out at the police station. The defense challenged the prosecution witnesses’ credibility, citing the use of second statements, a height description of 5’7” that did not match Villapando’s short stature, the lack of a police line-up, the non-presentation of Alicia Beron and Dr. Celso Bulanhagui, and the testimony of Rosario Panaligan of the Medical Records Section. Dr. Bulanhagui was abroad and Alicia Beron was in the United States. The RTC also noted conflicting testimony between Villapando and Acedillo on whether the store issued a receipt in addition to the guarantee booklet.

• Alibi: Appellant argued that the RTC ignored his defense of alibi, which he claimed was corroborated by two credible witnesses; he maintained that he was at the cockpit in San Pablo City at the time of the incident and that the Seiko guarantee booklet dated January 14, 1979 supported his presence there.
• Prosecution Witness Credibility: Appellant argued that the RTC ignored inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies; he claimed that the second, rather than the first, statements were submitted to court, that the first statements’ description matched defense witness Sorizo, that the second statements’ 5’7” height description did not match his short stature, that Panganiban’s identification was unreliable because there was no police line-up and appellant was in front of her, that Panganiban did not see the actual stabbing of Tolentino and Beron, that Alicia Beron and Dr. Bulanhagui were not presented, that the victim’s mother did not identify him, and that Rosario Panaligan could not testify to the correctness of the death and medical certificates signed by Dr. Bulanhagui.

• Alibi: Whether appellant’s defense of alibi should be credited to acquit him.
• Credibility and Identification: Whether the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and identification of appellant should be rejected because of alleged inconsistencies, lack of a police line-up, and non-presentation of other witnesses.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killing of Romulo Manalo to murder.
• Reiteracion: Whether reiteracion or habituality should be appreciated against appellant.
• Intent to Kill (Alicia Beron): Whether appellant was guilty of attempted homicide for stabbing Alicia Beron.
• Intent to Kill (Ramon Tolentino): Whether appellant was guilty of attempted homicide for stabbing Ramon Tolentino.

• Alibi: No. Alibi was not established by clear and convincing evidence; appellant failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the scene, and the distance between San Pablo City and Batangas City did not make presence impossible with modern transportation.
• Credibility and Identification: No. The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant, had no improper motive, and identification need not be made in a police line-up; the alleged inconsistencies were trivial or did not destroy credibility.
• Treachery: No. Treachery was not shown because there were no details on how the stabbing commenced and developed, and the death certificate did not disclose the nature of the wound to infer treachery; the killing is simple homicide.
• Reiteracion: No. The records did not show that appellant had been previously punished for an offense with an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more offenses with a lighter penalty.
• Intent to Kill (Alicia Beron): No. There was no clear and convincing evidence of intent to kill Alicia Beron; appellant is guilty only of slight physical injuries.
• Intent to Kill (Ramon Tolentino): No. There was no intent to kill Ramon Tolentino; appellant merely wanted to incapacitate the intervenors to attack his intended victim, so he is guilty only of less serious physical injuries.

• Alibi: The SC applied the rule that alibi must be established by clear and convincing evidence; appellant must prove not only that he was elsewhere at the time of the crime but also that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene. Appellant failed to prove impossibility. The distance between San Pablo City and Batangas City did not render it impossible for him to be present at the place and time of the incident considering modern means of transportation. The Seiko guarantee booklet was unconvincing because it did not assure the SC that the purchase was made in San Pablo City and not Batangas City, and it was possible that the watch was purchased in the morning or afternoon of the same date. The conflicting testimonies of appellant and Romy Acedillo on whether the store issued a receipt in addition to the guarantee booklet further weakened the alibi.
• Credibility and Identification: The SC found no showing that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motives in pointing to appellant as the person responsible for their injuries and Romulo’s death, so their testimonies were credible. Appellant was clearly and positively identified by Ramon Tolentino and Nelia Panganiban. Identification of an accused need not be done in a police line-up; it may be made by pointing directly to the accused, as was done. The fact that Panganiban did not see the actual stabbing of Tolentino and Beron and that Lucia Manalo did not identify appellant was of no moment because the victims themselves identified their assailant. The alleged height inconsistency was trivial because Alicia Beron gave only an approximate height. The testimony of the Head of the Medical Records Section was admissible to prove the authenticity of Dr. Bulanhagui’s signatures, and Dr. Bulanhagui’s being abroad and Alicia Beron’s being in the United States did not weaken the prosecution because the death and injuries could be established by testimonial evidence. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were part of the records.
• Treachery: The SC applied Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code, which requires that the offender employed means, methods, or forms of execution tending directly and specifically to insure the execution of the offense without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. The eyewitness testimonies were limited to the actual stabbing and gave no details on how the stabbing incident commenced and developed. The death certificate merely stated “death due to cardiac arrest, stab wound, chest, left, penetrating chest cavity” and did not disclose the nature of the stab wound so as to infer how the victim was killed. With no circumstance qualifying the killing to murder, the crime was simple homicide. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249, in relation to Article 64, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, imposed in its medium period; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is twelve years of prision mayor and the maximum is seventeen years of reclusion temporal. The indemnity for death was increased to P30,000.00 in addition to P5,000.00 actual damages and P25,000.00 moral and exemplary damages.
• Reiteracion: The SC applied the rule that in reiteracion or habituality, it is essential that the offender be previously punished, that is, he has served the sentence, for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached to the second offense, or for two or more offenses to which the law attaches a lighter penalty. The records did not disclose that appellant had been previously punished by an offense with an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes with a lighter penalty. Hence reiteracion or habituality was not appreciated.
• Intent to Kill (Alicia Beron): The SC upheld the trial court’s finding that appellant was guilty only of slight physical injuries because it was not shown by clear and convincing evidence that appellant intended to kill Alicia Beron. The SC affirmed the penalty of twenty days imprisonment imposed by the trial court for this offense.
• Intent to Kill (Ramon Tolentino): The SC found that appellant stabbed Ramon Tolentino and Alicia Beron because they intervened in his fight against the deceased. When Tolentino was held back momentarily by his wounds, appellant attacked the deceased again and then ran away. There was no injury to any vital part of Tolentino and Beron. From these facts, the SC could not see any intention on appellant’s part to kill Tolentino and Beron; he merely wanted to incapacitate them so he could turn his ire once more to his real and intended victim, Romulo Manalo. Absent intent to kill, appellant was liable only for less serious physical injuries and was sentenced to four months imprisonment.

• Alibi — Alibi must be established by clear and convincing evidence; the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere at the time of the crime but also that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene. The SC rejected appellant’s alibi because the distance between San Pablo City and Batangas City did not make presence impossible with modern transportation, and the Seiko guarantee booklet and conflicting testimonies did not convincingly place him elsewhere.
• Treachery — Treachery requires proof that the offender employed means, methods, or forms of execution that tend directly and specifically to insure the execution of the offense without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. The SC found no treachery because the eyewitnesses gave no details on how the stabbing commenced and developed, and the death certificate did not disclose the nature of the wound.
• Reiteracion or habituality — Reiteracion requires that the offender be previously punished, meaning he has served the sentence, for an offense with an equal or greater penalty than the second offense, or for two or more offenses with a lighter penalty. The SC did not appreciate it because the records did not show prior punishment under those conditions.
• Identification of the accused — Identification need not be made in a police line-up; it may be made by directly pointing to the accused. The SC upheld the identification of appellant by Ramon Tolentino and Nelia Panganiban, including Panganiban’s pointing him out at the police station.
• Intent to kill — Absence of intent to kill precludes attempted homicide and limits liability to physical injuries. The SC found no intent to kill Alicia Beron and Ramon Tolentino because there was no injury to vital parts and appellant merely wanted to incapacitate the intervenors to attack his intended victim.
• Credibility of witnesses and medical evidence — The SC credited prosecution witnesses who had no improper motive and found that the testimony of the Head of the Medical Records Section was admissible to prove the authenticity of the doctor’s signatures; the doctor’s absence abroad and a witness’s absence did not prevent proof of death and injuries through testimonial evidence.

• “We have already ruled that for alibi to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence” — The SC used this standard to reject appellant’s alibi because he failed to prove impossibility of presence at the crime scene.
• “For treachery to be present, it must be shown that the offender employed means, methods or forms of execution which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make (Art. 14,par. 16, Revised Penal Code).” — The SC quoted the governing rule and then found no treachery because the records did not show how the stabbing began and developed.
• “In reiteracion or habituality, it is essential that the offender be previously punished, that is, he has served the sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or provides for an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the second offense, or for two or more offenses, in which the law attaches a lighter penalty” — The SC used this requisites to reject the trial court’s appreciation of reiteracion.
• “Moreover, identification of an accused need not be done in a police line-up. It may also be made by just pointing to the accused directly as what was done in this case.” — The SC upheld the out-of-court and in-court identification of appellant despite the absence of a police line-up.

• People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 68805, July 9, 1986; 142 SCRA 576 — Controlling precedent on alibi; cited for the rule that alibi must be established by clear and convincing evidence and must show impossibility of presence at the crime scene.
• People vs. Layson, et al., G.R. No. L-25177, October 31, 1969; 30 SCRA 92 — Controlling precedent on reiteracion or habituality; cited for the requirement that the offender must have been previously punished for an offense with an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more offenses with a lighter penalty.
• United States vs. Maghirang, 28 Phil. 655 — Cited to support the conclusion that absent intent to kill, appellant was liable only for physical injuries and not attempted homicide.
• Gabriel vs. Bans, 56 Phil. 314 — Cited in the trial court’s findings quoted by the SC for the rule that silence when one ought to speak bars later speaking; used to discredit defense witness Sorizo.

• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery; the SC applied it and held that treachery was not present because the prosecution did not show how the stabbing commenced and developed and the death certificate did not disclose the nature of the wound.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalty for homicide; the SC applied it after finding that the killing was simple homicide, not murder.
• Article 64, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Requires the penalty to be imposed in its medium period when there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances; the SC applied it to the homicide penalty.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum penalties for homicide at twelve (12) years of prision mayor and seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, respectively.