G.R. No. L-48117 - Tenorio vs. Pano

On the night of December 9, 1946, at about 9 o’clock, an incident occurred at a small combination house and store in San Andres, Bondoc, Atimonan, Quezon.
Pedro Bele, the owner, was attended by his family in the residence-store when a person came calling to purchase cigarettes.
The caller was identified by Bele as Daniel Magnaye, the defendant and appellant in this case.

As Pedro Bele was delivering cigarettes, Daniel Magnaye, the appellant, suddenly grabbed Bele’s extended arm and immediately stabbed him.
Bele cried out (calling for his brother, Catalino Estrada) and fled into the room where his wife and children were present; however, the appellant followed and inflicted additional stab wounds before hastily fleeing the scene.
Catalino Estrada, reacting swiftly, pursued the fleeing assailant but was unable to capture him, and thus returned to the house to tend to Bele.

Shortly after the incident, Catalino Estrada went to seek succor at a relative’s residence and then informed the barrio lieutenant, who proceeded to inspect the scene and attend to the victim.
The following morning Bonifacio Garin, in charge of the town’s Security and Home Guards, visited Bele’s house where the dying man identified Daniel Magnaye as his attacker, expressing his belief that he would not survive.
The case was then forwarded to the Chief of Police, and during the investigation at the provincial hospital where Bele was brought, Bele reaffirmed his earlier declaration that the appellant was his assailant.
After two days, on December 12, 1946, Pedro Bele succumbed to his wounds.

Bele’s dying declaration was supported by testimony from his wife, Aurelia Escritor, and his brother, Catalino Estrada, both of whom were present at the residence and recognized the appellant under sufficient lighting conditions.
Additionally, Graciano Laraquel, who was present at the scene at the invitation of the appellant, corroborated the identification of Daniel Magnaye as the assailant.
The consistency of these accounts rendered the identification in the dying declaration highly probative against the defendant.

The appellant claimed that from the afternoon of December 8 until the early hours of December 10, 1946, he was at the residence of Severino Kuya in Padre Burgos, assisting during a town fiesta.
The evidence supporting this alibi was found weak and inconclusive; defense witness Severino Kuya conceded that the appellant could have easily left unnoticed for a three-hour period to commit the murder.

The appellant attempted to shift blame to Graciano Laraquel by introducing Exhibit “H”—an affidavit in which Laraquel supposedly admitted to the stabbing.
However, Laraquel later repudiated the affidavit (via Exhibit “G”), explaining that he had been intimidated by the appellant and maltreated by policemen into making a false confession implicating him.
Testimony from other witnesses and the circumstances of Bele’s dying declaration firmly contradicted the claim that Laraquel was the perpetrator.

The setting—a combination house and store—was analyzed in relation to potential aggravating circumstances such as “dwelling” or “craft.”
The defense’s theory that the store constituted a dwelling was rejected, while the method used by the appellant was instead classified as treachery, an element that qualifies the crime as murder.

Whether the positive identifications made by the victim, his wife, his brother, and corroborated by an additional witness are sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.
The impact of eyewitness testimony under conditions that were deemed sufficiently light for proper identification.

The credibility of the alibi provided by the defendant, which claimed his presence at another location during the time of the crime, and the inherent weaknesses in that defense.
The validity of the alternate perpetrator defense presented by the appellant through conflicting affidavits (Exhibits “H” and “G”) concerning Graciano Laraquel’s purported role in the stabbing.

Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction should be credited to the appellant despite evidence that he is literate.
Whether aggravating circumstances, such as the element of treachery (including the pretense to be a purchaser) should affect the sentencing, particularly in terms of influencing the imposition of the death penalty.

How the consistent dying declarations and testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses outweighed the inconsistent and unreliable evidence presented by the defense.
Whether the physical and circumstantial evidence supports the conviction for murder despite variations in witness accounts and potential intimidation issues.