G.R. No. L-28482 - People vs. Brioso

On or about December 23, 1966, in the Municipality of Tayum, Province of Abra, Silvino Daria was fatally shot.
An information filed by the Provincial Fiscal on January 16, 1967 charged Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with firearms of different calibers, acted in concert with deliberate intent to kill and with aggravating circumstances including treachery, superiority of strength, and use of a firearm.

The victim was at home with his wife Susana Tumalip; he was engaged in making rope in an annex while his wife was applying candle wax to a flat iron approximately four meters away.
The scene was illuminated by the bright moon, which enhanced visibility.
Cecilia Bernal, a neighbor and niece of the victim, observed the accused passing near the victim’s house, noting that Juan Brioso was carrying a long gun.
Bernal witnessed the accused point their respective guns at the bamboo wall of Daria’s house, followed by two shots and the ensuing cry for help.

Cecilia Bernal provided direct testimony identifying the accused as the ones who shot Silvino Daria.
The victim, prior to his death, identified his assailants to his wife, confirming that Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza had shot him.
The Medico-Legal Necropsy Report by Dr. Isabelo B. Lucas determined that the death was caused by “shock due to severe hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds at the abdomen and leg.”
Affidavits were later executed by Susana Tumalip and Cecilia Bernal, further pointing to the culpability of the accused.

The motive for the killing was linked to the disapproval by Silvino and Susana Daria of Mariano Taeza’s courtship of their daughter, Angelita.
It was reported that Angelita had been sent to Manila to avoid the advances of Mariano Taeza.
The close personal relationship between the accused, especially their friendship, was noted and later became significant in the evaluation of their alibi defenses.

Mariano Taeza asserted that he was at the barrio clinic of Tiker with Antonio Daria, Narciso Valera, and Jose Cabais when the crime occurred.

He claimed that while playing the guitar at the clinic, gunfire was heard, and he learned of the shooting shortly after.
An affidavit by Antonio Daria (Exhibit “2”) was offered to confirm this alibi; however, issues were noted regarding its authentication and opportunity for cross-examination.

Juan Brioso testified that he was in sitio Catungawan, barrio Basbasa, Tayum, where he had been invited by his cousin Nestorio Flores to engage in cutting and milling sugar cane.

His statement detailed his departure from Addamay early in the morning and engagement in milling after supper, claiming he remained in that location until the early hours of the following day.
The timing of his alibi was contested by contradictory accounts from Nestorio Flores regarding the exact schedule of events.

Both accused relied on the defense of alibi, which was ultimately weakened by inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence.

Whether Cecilia Bernal’s identification of the accused as the shooters was reliable, notwithstanding her brief observation and limitations in hearing.
Whether her testimony, corroborated by the victim’s identification of his assailants, established sufficient evidence regarding the physical identity of the accused.

Whether the uncorroborated affidavit (Exhibit “2”) of Antonio Daria, intended to clear Mariano Taeza, could be judicially accepted given issues of authentication and opportunity for cross-examination.
Whether the evidence presented in support of the alibi defenses was adequate to establish the physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene of the crime.

Whether the lower court correctly found the accused guilty of murder, considering that the killing was qualified by treachery and other aggravating circumstances.
Whether the determination of the crime as murder, with a qualifying circumstance of treachery and the subsequent imposition of life imprisonment (in light of the reduction from the death penalty), was legally sound.