G.R. No. 110098 - People vs. Azugue y Amador

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110098)

Amended Information and Charge of Murder with Qualifying Circumstance

The Amended Information filed by Asst. City Prosecutor Salvador B. Dellota on November 20, 1990 charged that on or about October 27, 1990, in Roxas City, the accused, conspiring and mutually helping one another, and acting with treachery and evident premeditation, with intent to kill Joebe Arrobang, attacked and stabbed Arrobang, thereby inflicting a mortal wound and causing his death. It alleged that after Arrobang had alighted from a jeepney that got stuck in the mud, Morito Salvador suddenly and without any warning stabbed the victim while Arrobang was held on both arms by Beturin and Azugue. As a result, the information alleged that Arrobang’s heirs suffered actual and moral damages, and the information prayed for punishment under Art. 248 with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

Dismissal of Co-Accused and Continuation Against Azugue

The trial court dismissed the case against accused Bertito Beturin without prejudice to refiling if evidence became available. Morito Salvador was never arrested and therefore did not stand trial. Consequently, the prosecution proceeded solely against Buenafe Azugue, the only accused before the court at the time of decision.

Prosecution Evidence: Sole Eyewitness Account and Medical Findings

The trial court summarized that around seven o’clock in the evening of October 27, 1990 in Brgy. Cogon, Roxas City, Joebe Arrobang was stabbed and died. Arrobang was brought to St. Anthony Hospital, yet he succumbed. The record included the certification of death and a subsequent post mortem examination by Dr. Rafael Almalbis, Jr., a City Health Officer. The post mortem examination described a through and through stab wound in the abdomen, with the indicated cause of death stated as shock, second to internal hemorrhage due to stab wound of the abdomen.

The prosecution’s incident narrative depended on the testimony of Porferio Delmo, described as the sole prosecution witness. Delmo testified that at about four o’clock in the afternoon of October 27, 1990, while he was riding in a public utility jeep traveling from Barangay Punta Cogon, the jeep suddenly stopped because its rear tire got stuck in the mud. Arrobang, serving as conductor, alighted to check what caused the stoppage. Delmo stated that Azugue held Arrobang on both forearms in a face-to-face position, while from behind Morito Salvador stabbed Arrobang, striking him on his right hips. Delmo reported that Arrobang shouted, “I was stabbed,” after which Morito Salvador ran toward Barangay Punta Cogon. Delmo further stated that although he saw Arrobang being aided and the victim was brought to the hospital in the same jeep, Delmo did not see Arrobang alight again after witnessing the stabbing. Delmo also testified that he was about two armslength away during the stabbing and that he already knew both accused before the incident. He identified Azugue in court as the one who held Arrobang’s arms.

Defense Evidence: Alibi and Attempt to Recast the Perpetration

Azugue testified in his defense and interposed alibi. He claimed that on the morning of October 27, 1990, he went with Wilfredo Buenvenida, his father-in-law, to Barangay Ilas Norte, Municipality of Dao, Province of Capiz, and that he did not return to his residence in Barangay Cogon until October 28, 1990. According to Azugue, he therefore was not in Barangay Cogon at the time of the incident. Buenvenida partially corroborated the alibi by stating that he and Azugue left for Ilas Norte on October 7, 1990 to harvest palay and returned only on October 30, 1990.

Separately, Mrs. Merlinda Fajartin, sister of Morito Salvador, testified to a different version of the encounter. She stated that around six-thirty in the evening of October 27, 1990, she heard Arrobang shouting and challenging Morito Salvador to come out. She then went downstairs, saw Arrobang carrying a bench used to hit an opponent, and claimed that her brother appeared and stabbed Arrobang, after which he ran away. She asserted that she did not know her brother’s whereabouts afterwards and stated that, at the time, Morito Salvador had no companion and that no passenger jeepney was present as the prosecution had claimed.

Trial Court’s Ruling on Credibility and Legal Sufficiency

In its Decision dated January 8, 1993, the trial court found Azugue guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and it imposed reclusion perpetua with P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The decretal portion stated that there were no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, and it provided for the deduction of the period of detention in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. It also declared that no bail was allowed pending finality.

Issues on Appeal

Azugue assigned two errors. First, he argued that the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the “incredible” testimony of the prosecution’s lone witness. Second, he maintained that the trial court erred in disregarding his alibi, which he argued was corroborated by Buenvenida.

Appellate Ruling: Credibility of the Lone Eyewitness and the Effect of Non-Statement to Authorities

On the question of sufficiency and credibility, the Court focused on Azugue’s claim that Delmo’s testimony should be distrusted because Delmo did not make a statement to the police or appear before the City Prosecutor and was allegedly not included as a witness in the information. The accused also pointed to the fact that Delmo’s testimony allegedly came almost two years after the stabbing.

The Court held that the trial court correctly gave credence to Delmo. It reasoned that Delmo gave a straightforward and unequivocal narration and positively identified Azugue as the person who held Arrobang’s arms while Morito Salvador stabbed Arrobang from behind. The Court rejected the argument that Delmo’s failure to give a prior statement to police authorities was fatal, explaining that Delmo testified at trial and clarified the reason: other passengers already reported the incident, which made it unnecessary for Delmo to make his own statement. The Court treated this lapse as not diminishing the veracity of Delmo’s court testimony.

The Court also dismissed the claim that Delmo’s proximity as a neighbor necessarily impaired his credibility. It underscored that no improper motive was shown that would justify falsification, and it invoked the teaching that the mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not, by itself, devalue testimony absent evidence of improper motive. Finally, the Court held that the passage of time of about two years did not automatically render Delmo’s identification inaccurate, particularly because Delmo had witnessed a stabbing happening within about two armslength and had known the accused beforehand. It reaffirmed the rule that a trial court’s assessment of conflicting testimonies deserves respect because the trial judge is in the best position to observe demeanor and deportment, unless the trial court plainly overlooked substantial facts affecting the outcome.

Appellate Ruling: Alibi Deemed Unreliable for Failure to Show Physical Impossibility

On alibi, the Court held that Azugue failed to overcome the evidentiary burden required for such defense. It reiterated that alibi is among the weakest defenses and is viewed with suspicion because it is inherently unreliable and easy to fabricate. It further held that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification unless the accused proves that he was in another place for such a period of time that it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene at the time of commission.

The Court found that Azugue failed to show this requirement of time and place. It pointed to discrepancies between Azugue’s and Buenvenida’s accounts on when they returned to Roxas City and highlighted that Buenavenida testified that the crime scene was approximately only one hour away by jeep. It thus held that it was not physically impossible for Azugue to have traveled to the area and to commit the stabbing within the relevant timeframe. The Court further observed that Azugue’s and Buenvenida’s inconsistent testimony, given under the same hearing date and with Buenvenida testifying before Azugue, supported the conclusion that their accounts were fabricated. It also discredited Merlinda Fajartin’s attempt to shift the crime scene and to depict Morito Salvador as acting alone, stating that such testimony was unworthy of belief and appeared crafted to secure Azugue’s acquittal, given that Azugue was alleged to be a friend and co-conspirator of Morito Salvador.

Conspiracy: Liability Without Proof that the Accused Personally Stabbed

The Court then addressed the legal effect of Azugue’s participation. It recognized that Azugue’s role, as shown by the evidence, was limited to holding Arrobang’s arms. Nonetheless, it held that the absence of proof that Azugue

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 110098)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Buenafe Azugue y Amador for murder and the accused appealed the judgment of conviction.
The appeal challenged a Decision dated January 8, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 15 stationed in Roxas City.
The trial court convicted the accused of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and imposed reclusion perpetua.
The trial court also ordered the accused to pay PHP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs.
The Court of Appeals and other appellate processes are not mentioned; the record presented shows that the matter reached the Supreme Court via a direct appeal by the accused.
The Supreme Court treated the accused’s defenses as issues largely dependent on the trial court’s assessment and discretion.

Charging Allegations

The Amended Information charged that on or about October 27, 1990 in Roxas City, the accused, in conspiracy, conspired, confederated, and mutually helped one another.
The information alleged treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying and aggravating circumstances, respectively.
The information alleged that the accused with intent to kill Joebe Arrobang attacked him with a knife.
The information alleged that the accused Morito Salvador stabbed the deceased without warning while the victim was held by Bertito Beturin and Buenafe Azugue.
The information alleged that as a direct consequence of the unlawful act, the heirs of the deceased suffered damages.
The amended information alleged the killing as without justifiable cause and with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
The case proceeded only against Buenafe Azugue because Bertito Beturin was dismissed without prejudice and Morito Salvador remained at large.

Antecedents and Trial Findings

The trial court found that around 7:00 o’clock in the evening of October 27, 1990 at Brgy. Cogon, City of Roxas, Joebe Arrobang was stabbed and died.
The victim was brought to St. Anthony Hospital for medical attendance but eventually died.
A medical certificate of death was issued by Dr. Gervacio Diaz, and the victim was later referred for post mortem examination to Dr. Rafael Almalbis, Jr., then a City Health Officer.
The post mortem findings described a through and through stab wound in the right flank of the abdomen at the level of the umbilicus.
The post mortem findings stated that the cause of death was shock, second to internal hemorrhage due to the stab wound of the abdomen.
The trial court relied on the testimony of the prosecution’s sole witness, Porferio Delmo, to establish the circumstances of the stabbing.
The trial court treated the accused’s participation as established by the witness’s positive identification.

Key Factual Allegations

Porferio Delmo testified that at about four o’clock in the afternoon of October 27, 1990, the public utility jeep stopped because its rear tire got stuck in mud.
Delmo testified that the victim, serving as conductor, alighted from the jeep to check the cause of the stop.
Delmo testified that Buenafe Azugue held the victim on both forearms while the accused and the victim faced each other.
Delmo testified that from behind, Morito Salvador approached and stabbed the victim.
Delmo testified that the victim shouted that he was stabbed, and that the victim was hit on the right hip.
Delmo testified that Morito Salvador ran away toward the direction of Brgy. Punta Cogon.
Delmo testified that the victim was helped after the stabbing and he later rode the same jeep to the hospital.
Delmo testified that he knew both accused even before the incident occurred.
Delmo testified that the distance between him and the stabbing was about two armslength.
Delmo identified Buenafe Azugue in court as the person who held the victim’s arms before the stabbing.

Defense Theories Presented

The accused raised alibi and claimed he was not in Roxas City at the time of the stabbing.
The accused testified that in the morning of October 27, 1990, he went to Barangay Ilas Norte, Municipality of Dao, Province of Capiz with Wilfredo Buenavenida.
The accused claimed that he returned to Barangay Cogon only on October 28, 1990, so he allegedly could not have been present at the stabbing scene.
Buenavenida partially corroborated the accused’s alibi by claiming they left for Ilas Norte to harvest palay and returned only on October 30, 1990.
The defense also presented testimony from Merlinda Fajartin, sister of Morito Salvador, to place the incident in another context.
Merlinda testified that she heard the victim shouting in the street facing the house of Morito Salvador and that she later saw the brother stab the victim.
Merlinda testified that her brother had no companion at the time and that there was no passenger jeepney around as claimed by the prosecution.
The accused’s overall defense theory was that Morito Salvador acted alone, and that Buenafe Azugue was not the perpetrator.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The accused assigned as error the trial court’s alleged reliance on the prosecution’s “incredible” lone eyewitness testimony.
The accused argued that Delmo’s failure to present a prior statement to the police or the city prosecutor rendered the testimony doubtful.
The accused further argued that Delmo’s testimony became suspect because Delmo was a neighbor