Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15023)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15023)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Alban alias Fred, G.R. No. L-15023, March 29, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barrera, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) charged defendant-appellant Alfredo Alban alias Fred with murder for the killing of Teofilo Boado; the Court of First Instance of La Union (Crim. Case No. 2090) convicted appellant and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered payment of P6,000 indemnity and costs. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The facts found by the trial court, as adduced at trial, show that at about 8:00 p.m. on July 16, 1956 two masked men entered the house of Teofilo Boado in Barrio San Julian, Agoo, La Union. The victim and his wife Marcela Dacanay were awakened; Marcela lit two kerosene lamps and, approaching the dining room, met the intruders and, despite a handkerchief-mask worn below the eyes, she identified one of them as appellant. The intruder whom Marcela identified carried a small white gun. Shots were fired and Teofilo fell. While being helped after the shooting, the victim allegedly said, “You arrest Fred ... because he was the one who shot me,” which was reduced to a written Ilocano statement (Exh. C-1) translated into English; the victim, however, did not sign the statement because of his condition. The victim was taken to Dona Gregoria Memorial Hospital and later to Bethany Hospital in San Fernando for transfusion, where he died.
Police were dispatched and found appellant at his uncle Dionisio Boado’s home in the same barrio; he was taken to the municipal building (presidencia) of Agoo and later detained in the police chief’s office. Patrolman Francisco Balancio took down the victim’s statement at about 10:30 p.m. that night prior to the transfer to Bethany Hospital.
Appellant’s defense was an alibi: he testified that between about 7:30 and 8:30 p.m. he was at the house of Felino Dumo listening to the radio, then went to his uncle’s house across the street, ate and slept; he said he was awakened at about 10:00 p.m. by policemen who asked him to come to the presidencia. Appellant also urged physical incapacity to fire a gun because of missing fingers and complained that a requested paraffin test was not done.
The trial court rejected the alibi, credited Marcela’s positive identification and deemed the victim’s declaration admissible as part of the res gestae; it found appellant could have been at the scene despite his claimed presence elsewhere, and that his physical condition did not preclude shooting. The court convicted appellant of murder qualified by treachery and found the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and disguise; because the required number of votes for death was lacking, the maximum penalty was not imposed. The trial court’s conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal.
Issues:
- Did appellant’s alibi and the defense evidence create reasonable doubt warranting reversal of his conviction?
- Were the victim’s exclamation naming “Fred” and the widow’s in-court identification admissible and sufficient to support conviction (i.e., may such declarations be considered part of the res gestae and identification evidence)?
- Do the absence of proven motive, appellant’s alleged inability to handle a gun, or the non-performance of a paraffin test require reversal or mitigation of the sentence?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)