People v. Cortez y Domingo

 

People v. Cortez y Domingo

G.R. No. 253635

April 19, 2023

FACTS:

                Version of the Prosecution

                Wilfredo was on his way home from the farm with his children Wilington and Alicia. Wilfredo and Wilington were each riding a carabao while Alicia was walking behind them at a distance of about five arms-length. Suddenly, accused-appellants appeared and Rene hit Wilfredo with a bolo. When Wilfredo fell from the carabao, accused-appellants chased him and hacked him to death. At this point, Alicia was begging them not to kill her father but her plea was left unheeded.  Accused-appellants also attempted to hack Wilington but the latter was able to evade them as he ran towards their house. Meanwhile, Alicia also ran to their home to inform her mother that her father had passed away. Afterwards, she and her mother went to the crime scene and reported the incident to the authorities. Dr. Domingo performed a post-mortem examination on Wilfredo's body and found 16 incised and hacked wounds of various sizes, possibly inflicted by sharp bladed bolos of different sizes. Of the said wounds, two wounds — a cheek penetrating hack wound which reached the nape and a hack wound in the middle of the anterior neck up to the nape which cut the bones — caused his instantaneous death.

                Version of the Defense

                Rene testified that on March 18, 2007, he went home after a basketball game and learned about the stabbing incident from his aunt. He looked for his brothers and after their discussion, convinced Ricardo to surrender to the police. Thereafter, he and Rudy accompanied Ricardo to the police station. However, he was surprised after finding out that he and Rudy were also being charged with the death of Wilfredo.

 

On the other hand, Rudy testified that because of an altercation with Wilington, Wilfredo constantly harassed him and chase him with a gulok so he was forced to leave Sitio Tunnel and move to Murtha. On the day of the said incident, he was driving a trailer on his way to attend a fiesta in Sitio Tunnel when Wilfredo and Wilington suddenly appeared and blocked the road. Since Rudy was not able to hit the brakes, the trailer fell on the side of the river. Then, he noticed that Wilfredo was chasing him while carrying an unsheathed bolo so he ran towards the house of his father and asked for help from his brothers. During Rudy's testimony, he corrected some parts of his affidavit and stated that: 1) during a previous altercation with Wilington, he did not stab the latter but merely boxed him; 2) Wilington was charging him P7,000.00 for an unknown reason; and 3) he is older than Ricardo. Meanwhile, Ricardo's testimony was stricken off the records since his testimony was never completed for his failure to appear during the continuation of his testimony.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the accused was correctly convicted.

HELD:

                Yes. When the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. The testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward, and worthy of credence, and the credibility of the sole witness was duly established and observed in court. In this case, Alicia, who personally witnessed the crime, was offered to prove that Rene, Rudy, and Ricardo stabbed Wilfredo to death.

                The defenses of alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law because they are easily fabricated and concocted. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, and it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. In this case, aside from their bare assertion, accused-appellants have indubitably failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that they were at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, and it was physically impossible for them to be present or within its immediate vicinity.