GR L 67966; (July, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67966 July 31, 1984
People of the Philippines vs. Mario Navoa, Rafael Navoa, Ricardo Sitchon, Macario Saguinza, John Doe and Peter Doe
FACTS
Accused-appellants Mario Navoa, Rafael Navoa, and Ricardo Sitchon were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Bataan for the murder of Tomas Izon. The court sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty. The conviction was based on the testimonies of eyewitness Baltazar de la Rosa and co-accused Macario Saguinza, who was discharged to become a state witness. Saguinza’s testimony provided the motive for the killing. The appellants interposed the defense of alibi.
The case was appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s factual findings but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence on cases where the penalty imposed is life imprisonment, the Appellate Court certified and elevated the entire records to the Supreme Court for final review, as the matter falls within the latter’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the conviction of the appellants for the crime of murder is supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court adopted in toto the findings and conclusions of the Intermediate Appellate Court, appending its decision as an integral part of the ruling. The Court held that the testimonies of eyewitness Baltazar de la Rosa and state witness Mario Saguinza constituted ample and credible evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction. Saguinza’s declaration not only detailed the commission of the crime but also revealed the appellants’ motive.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected by the lower courts. It cannot prevail over the positive identification made by a credible eyewitness, especially when corroborated by another witness who testified on the motive. The Court reiterated the doctrine that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, absent any showing that it overlooked or misconstrued significant facts. No such circumstance was present in this case. The proper penalty for murder, absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, is reclusion perpetua, which is the medium period of the penalty prescribed by law. The Court thus sentenced each appellant to reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim to P30,000.00.