GR 72883; (December, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 72883 December 20, 1989
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AURELIO ESPINOSA @ “ROLLY” and JESUS FLORO y JUNDOY, accused. JESUS FLORO y JUNDOY, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On May 6, 1981, Jaime Mamucod was killed in Santa Cruz, Manila. His two sons, Arnold and Ariel, who were with him, testified that their father’s jeep was blocked by accused Aurelio Espinosa and appellant Jesus Floro. Floro first struck Jaime on the head with a hard object wrapped in newspaper. When Jaime fell, Espinosa stabbed him in the back with a fan knife, and Floro stabbed him in the chest with an ice pick. The pursuit and attack continued until Jaime fell into a ditch. He died the next day from multiple stab wounds. Their testimonies were corroborated by an eyewitness, Manuel Buenaventura. The defense presented alibi, with Floro claiming he was at home, which was merely 200 meters from the crime scene. A defense witness, Lilia Silva, testified she saw only Espinosa stabbing the victim.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Jesus Floro of Murder based on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, despite alleged inconsistencies and the defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that the judge had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor, a crucial factor not reflected in the cold record. The alleged minor inconsistencies in the sons’ testimonies—such as the exact point of the initial blow or the victim’s posture during the stabbing—were deemed natural. The witnesses were young, traumatized sons viewing a horrific attack on their father from different vantage points; perfect recall is not expected. The defense witness’s failure to see Floro does not negate his presence, as her testimony covered only a latter part of the incident amidst a crowd.
The Court found conspiracy. The concerted actions of Floro and Espinosa—blocking the jeep, the sequential attack with Floro initiating the assault, and their joint pursuit—demonstrated a common purpose to kill. This made Floror equally liable for the killing. Treachery was correctly appreciated as the attack was sudden and rendered the victim defenseless. The Court also noted that the necropsy report’s use of the generic term “stab wounds” includes wounds inflicted by an ice pick. Floro’s flight (remaining at large for a time) was considered a further indication of guilt. The judgment sentencing Floro to reclusion perpetua and ordering civil indemnity was affirmed.