THE  PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CEFERINO-MEDRANA Y TORRES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Ceferino Medrana versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the appeal of Ceferino Medrana from a conviction for murder in the killing of Arturo Fernandez at the Muni Golf Links in Intramuros, Manila, on the night of September 5, 1967. Medrana was tried separately from his co-accused, and he staked his defense on alibi. The case matters to a reviewee because it shows how the Supreme Court treats alibi against positive eyewitness identification, how it weighs the credibility of reluctant eyewitnesses who testify only after being given protection, and how conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superiority are established in a killing carried out by several armed men against one defenseless victim.

Procedural History

Medrana was charged with murder in a separate information, and the case was eventually assigned to the Circuit Criminal Court, where he was tried alone. After trial, the lower court convicted him of murder qualified by abuse of superiority and aggravated by cuadrilla, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay an indemnity of 390,400 pesos. Medrana appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in December 1981.

Facts

At around ten o'clock in the evening of September 5, 1967, Arturo Fernandez, known as Oying, was drinking whiskey at the restaurant of the Muni Golf Links with Napoleon Medalla, Tommy Dizon, and Teodulfo Belarmino. Paulino Gelidon, Melvin Yabut, and Eladio Yabut arrived, and Medrana sat with Gelidon and Ching Santos at an opposite table. Medalla uttered derogatory remarks against Nemesio Yabut, and Fernandez countered that Yabut was his compadre. Medalla then pointed to his bodyguards, Medrana and Belarmino, who were armed with caliber .45 guns.

Shortly thereafter, Medalla directed Medrana to get a Thompson submachine gun from his car. Fernandez advised Medrana not to get the gun because trouble might ensue, but Medrana complied and walked toward the parking lot. Medalla followed, and Fernandez, Belarmino, and Dizon also went to the parking lot. A cigarette vendor, Maria Resma, saw Medalla and Fernandez grappling for a long gun. Medalla wrested the gun away and placed it in his car, and Fernandez, with hands raised, moved backward, saying that he would not fight.

Benjamin Lopez, a caddy, heard a gunshot and saw Medalla, Medrana, and Belarmino aiming their firearms at Fernandez, who was backing away with raised hands in surrender. After Belarmino fired and Fernandez fell and rose, Medrana fired at him. As Fernandez walked in a zigzag manner toward his car, Belarmino fired again. Medrana followed the victim and fired at him repeatedly. Fernandez collapsed near the restaurant, stood up, and staggered toward the fairway, still pursued by Medrana, until Medalla shouted the order to stop. Fernandez was already dead upon arrival at the Philippine General Hospital, with a fatal gunshot wound in his abdomen. Medrana went into hiding and was arrested nearly one year later, on August 31, 1968.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses despite the alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and the fact that they gave their statements only after receiving protection from the victim's father.
• Whether or not Medrana's alibi can overcome the positive identification by the eyewitnesses and the declarations of his co-accused placing him at the scene of the crime.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not awaiting the completion of the testimonies of Belarmino and Hermo in the separate case before ruling on Medrana's theory of self-defense or defense of a stranger.
• Whether or not conspiracy among the four accused was proven.
• Whether or not the killing was qualified by abuse of superiority.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision in full. It applies the settled rules on alibi, on the credibility of witnesses, on conspiracy, and on the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superiority under the Revised Penal Code, and it treats these rules as the governing law of the case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the testimonies of Gelidon, Eladio Yabut, Resma, and Lopez bore the earmarks of veracity. The witnesses candidly explained that they feared Medalla and did not want to be involved, and that they decided to testify only after Senator Fernandez gave them security and shelter. The Court found that their failure to volunteer statements immediately was consistent with human experience, since eyewitnesses to killings usually do not want the trouble of an investigation and exposure to reprisal. The contradictions dealt only with minor details and did not nullify their declarations on Medrana's participation in the shooting.

On the second issue, the Court held that Medrana's alibi was belied by Belarmino's statement, taken about fourteen hours after the killing, placing Medrana at the scene, and by the booking sheet and arrest report signed by Hermo implicating him. The Court also noted that Medrana was a fugitive from justice for nearly a year, a circumstance indicative of guilt.

On the third issue, the Court held that no error was committed in proceeding with the separate trial. Belarmino's confession and Hermo's booking sheet both placed Medrana at the scene, so their testimonies would have been of no help to him. The theory of self-defense or defense of a stranger could not be sustained, because there was no reason why Fernandez would perpetrate unlawful aggression against Medalla and his bodyguards. The Court also found the medico-legal testimony, like expert testimony in general, to be a hodgepodge of conjectures.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that while conspiracy was not proven directly, it could be implied from the concerted attack and the relationship of the accused to one another, since Belarmino and Medrana were Medalla's bodyguards and Hermo was his driver. Medrana was a co-conspirator, and his complicity was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the killing was qualified by abuse of superiority, since the four accused, all armed, ganged up against Fernandez and took advantage of their numerical superiority in liquidating him with impunity. What happened, the Court said, is known in colloquial parlance as overkill.

Doctrine

Alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification by eyewitnesses and over the declarations of co-accused placing the accused at the scene of the crime. The reluctance of eyewitnesses to volunteer statements immediately, and their testimony after receiving protection, do not by themselves impair credibility, because such reluctance is consistent with human experience and fear of reprisal. Conspiracy may be implied from the concerted attack and the relationship of the accused to one another, even without direct proof of agreement. Abuse of superiority qualifies a killing when the assailants, all armed, take advantage of their numerical superiority against a defenseless victim. Flight and hiding for nearly a year are circumstances indicative of guilt.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Medrana for murder, with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superiority, and upheld the penalty and the indemnity awarded by the trial court.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi cannot overcome positive identification and the implied conspiracy shown by a concerted armed attack. Examiners use this case to test the credibility of reluctant eyewitnesses and the appreciation of abuse of superiority in a killing by several armed assailants.