Case Digest (G.R. No. 141259)
Facts:
Lambertino Prieto was charged with murder for stabbing his uncle, Geraldo Prieto, on or about July 4, 1995 in Sibacan, Danao City, after Geraldo opened the door to a man calling outside while it was raining hard. Geraldo died shortly after the incident; his wife, Dulcesima Prieto, identified Lambertino as the assailant based on his voice and, after the assailant’s mask-handkerchief fell, on her view of his face, while neighbors testified to their arrival and Felix Capuno’s recognition of Lambertino jumping out of the window armed with a knife.
The RTC, Danao City Branch 25, convicted Lambertino of murder, imposed reclusion perpetua, and ordered indemnification of P75,000.00. Lambertino appealed, assailing the prosecution’s identification and invoking alibi.
Issues:
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Lambertino Prieto was the assailant who killed Geraldo Prieto.
- Whether Lambertino Prieto’s defense of alibi should have been credited.
- Whether the crime was correctly classified as murder qualified by treachery and whether dwelling could be considered.
- Whether the civil liabilities awarded by the trial court were proper.
Ruling:
The Court held that the conviction was supported by credible identification, and it rejected Lambertino’s alibi for failing to establish physical impossibility and for lacking corroboration. It affirmed the finding that Lambertino stabbed Geraldo without provocation when the door was opened, and that the evidence supported treachery.
As to qualifying and aggravating circumstances, the Court ruled that dwelling could not be considered because it was not alleged in the Information, though the Court still sustained conviction for murder qualified by treachery. It modified the awards: reducing civil indemnity to P50,000, granting moral damages of P50,000, and adding exemplary damages of P25,000, while no further burial/wake expenses were awarded for lack of proof.
Ratio:
The Court gave weight to Dulcesima Prieto’s testimony that she recognized Lambertino’s voice when he called to “open the door,” and that she later saw his face when the handkerchief mask fell after the stabbing. It found unpersuasive the claim that the surroundings were too dark, stressing that the attack occurred under illumination from a kerosene lamp and that Dulcesima was near the door and the assailant during the stabbing and its immediate aftermath. The Court also found that the natural reaction of relatives of the victim supported Dulcesima’s identification, and it treated the challenge as essentially an attack on the trial court’s credibility findings, to which appellate courts accord high respect absent misapprehension of facts.
On alibi, the Court held that Lambertino failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that he was at another place at the time of the crime such that it was physically impossible to be at the situs criminis. It noted that Lambertino had not timely informed the police that he was at Atty. Exuperio Gonzales’ house during the commission of the offense, and it considered the explanations given by the defense as incredible. The Court sustained treachery based on the manner of attack—sudden stabbing without provocation when the victim opened the door—while refusing to consider dwelling as an aggravating circumstance because it was not alleged in the Information, in keeping with the rule that unalleged aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated when it would affect the accused.
Doctrine:
- Voice identification is sufficient when the witness and accused had known each other personally and closely for a number of years.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)