THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LAZARO CLARIÑO, CONSTANTINO CLARIÑO, REYNALDO CLARIÑO, DANILO CLARIÑO, MARIANO COPE (AT LARGE), AGUINALDO CLARIÑO, (AT LAR…

People versus Clariño

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Lazaro Clariño, Constantino Clariño, Reynaldo Clariño, Danilo Clariño, and four other companions for the killing of Jose Brosas, who was hacked and stabbed to death while asleep in a makeshift hut where he was stripping abaca. The trial court convicted four of the accused of murder and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. The case matters for the bar because it is a compact illustration of how the Supreme Court weighs an eyewitness identification made at night, how it treats the defenses of denial and alibi, and how it applies the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength in an ambush-style killing.

Procedural History

The accused were charged by information with murder before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Tabaco, Albay. Four of them, Mariano Cope, Aguinaldo Clariño, Quirico Clariño, Jr., and Avelino Cobeta, were at large, and the case against them was sent to the archives pending their arrest. The four who were present pleaded not guilty and were tried. On May 27, 1998, the trial court rendered judgment finding Lazaro Clariño, Constantino Clariño, Reynaldo Clariño, and Danilo Clariño guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Jose Brosas in the amount of 50,000 pesos. From that decision, the four convicted accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

At around five o'clock in the afternoon of September 9, 1995, Rodolfo Consulta went to Sitio Sto. Cristo in Barangay Cale, Tiwi, Albay, to catch bats, since the full moon made it a good night for it. He found a suitable tabog tree near a makeshift hut owned by Domingo Cotara, where he saw Jose Brosas, whom he had long known, stripping abaca. Consulta climbed the tree at about six o'clock in the evening and from there watched Brosas retire on an elevation inside the hut and cover himself with a blanket.

At about eleven o'clock that night, Consulta saw eight men inside the hut, all of whom he recognized: the four accused-appellants and their four co-accused. Four of them carried flashlights, and all were armed with bolos or pointed bamboo. Constantino Clariño struck the sleeping Brosas with his bolo first, and the others followed, each inflicting stab or hack wounds. Brosas simply fell; there was no struggle. The assailants then left. Consulta climbed down and ran home. The next morning he reported the matter to Barangay Tanod Amando Cope but did not name the culprits out of fear; only on December 16, 1996, some fifteen months later, did he tell the police what he knew.

On September 10, 1995, Domingo Cotara reported Brosas missing. A search party found a bloodstained blanket riddled with rents under the makeshift bed. On the afternoon of September 11, 1995, the decomposing body of Brosas was found buried in mud about 150 meters from the hut. Dr. Leonides Cruel's autopsy showed multiple hack and stab wounds, including a hacked skull exposing brain tissue, and he opined that the victim was attacked while lying down and that the wounds could not have been inflicted by a single assailant using a single instrument. The defense relied on denial and alibi, claiming the four accused were at a novena in the house of their aunt, Elena Bornalo, on the night in question, corroborated by Ernesto Diaz.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of Rodolfo Consulta identifying the accused-appellants as the killers of Jose Brosas.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi of the accused-appellants should be sustained.
• Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, with the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused were charged and convicted, provides:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This provision supplies the crime and the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength that the information alleged and that the trial court found.

Rule 133, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, on the quantum of evidence in criminal cases, provides:

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

This standard governs the Court's review of whether the prosecution's eyewitness evidence overcame the accused's denial and alibi.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Consulta's testimony was credible and sufficient. It took judicial notice, through the findings of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, that the moon on that night was fully illuminated, and it reasoned that a full moon, together with the flashlights carried by four of the assailants, gave ample illumination for identification. The Court noted that illumination from the moon and even from the stars is fair and sufficient to identify perpetrators of crimes, even at distances greater than that between Consulta and the hut. It also held that as between a negative assertion and a positive one, the positive assertion is given more weight, so the burden fell on the defense to show that Consulta could not have witnessed the killing, and the defense failed to discharge it. The Court found nothing improbable in eight men entering a hut with no walls, and it held that an error in estimating how long the attack lasted concerned a negligible detail that did not destroy the testimony. The fifteen-month delay in reporting was adequately explained by fear of reprisal. The Court also held that the blanket's admission did not require a laboratory examination, since the presentation and identification of the weapon used are not indispensable to prove guilt where there is positive identification.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the defenses of denial and alibi. Alibi must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and the accused failed to show that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. The trial court's assessment of the witnesses' demeanor was entitled to great respect absent strong justification to disturb it.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the conviction for murder, finding that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength attended the killing, since the victim was attacked while asleep and defenseless by eight armed men.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, an eyewitness identification made at night is reliable where the scene was illuminated by a full moon and by flashlights carried by the malefactors, and where the witness knew the accused. Second, as between a negative assertion and a positive assertion, the positive assertion is given more weight under the rules on evidence, so the burden of showing that the witness could not have seen the incident rests on the defense. Third, delay in reporting a crime does not destroy the witness's credibility where it is explained by fear of reprisal or a natural reluctance to be involved. Fourth, the presentation and identification of the weapon used are not indispensable to prove guilt where there is positive identification of the accused. Fifth, denial and alibi are weak defenses that cannot prevail over positive identification, and alibi requires proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene. These rules, applied together, sustain a conviction for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code where the killing is attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the four accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, with joint and several liability to indemnify the heirs of Jose Brosas in the amount of 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a positive assertion prevails over a negative one, and that moonlight and flashlights are sufficient illumination for a credible nighttime identification. Examiners like to use this case to test the weight of alibi and denial against positive identification, and the sufficiency of circumstantial illumination in eyewitness testimony.