PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RAMIL BERUEGA AND ROGELIO BERUEGA, APPELLANTS.

People of the Philippines versus Beruega

The Case

This is an appeal by Ramil Beruega and Rogelio Beruega from a judgment of conviction for murder. The People charged that the two men, conspiring and helping one another, stabbed Galicano Retirado II to death on the last night of the year. The case matters for the bar candidate because it gathers in one decision the working rules on the weight of a lone eyewitness, the treatment of alibi and denial, and the appreciation of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance. It is a study in how the Supreme Court tests the sufficiency of evidence on appeal.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76, tried the two accused on an information for murder. Both pleaded not guilty at arraignment. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision on the thirtieth of September, 1999, finding both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising errors on the credibility of the eyewitness, on the appreciation of abuse of superior strength, and on the alternative prayer that Rogelio be convicted only of homicide and Ramil be acquitted. The appeal was deemed submitted for resolution in August 2001, and the Court decided it in April 2002.

Facts

On the afternoon of the thirty-first of December, 1997, Gerry Francisco passed by a drinking session at the housing area in Barangay Silangan, San Mateo, Rizal, where Galicano Retirado, known as Nonoy, was drinking with friends. He declined a drink but promised to return, and he did return around six in the evening. Nonoy then showed the group a letter written by his live-in partner, Amor Beruega, whose tenor pointed to Rogelio Beruega as the real father of Grace, the child supposed to be Nonoy's. Nonoy confided that the letter had caused an argument between him and Amor, and he uttered that if he did not kill, he would be killed.

Shortly before seven in the evening, Nonoy asked a companion to go with him to Rogelio's house, and they returned after about thirty minutes. Not long after, Amor's sister arrived to fetch Nonoy, saying Rogelio wanted to see him. Nonoy went to Rogelio's house, followed closely and unknown to him by Gerry Francisco and Francisco Telib. From about ten armslength away, the two saw and heard a commotion inside the lighted house, with the men exchanging shouts and invectives. Gerry saw Ramil Beruega position himself at the back of Nonoy and hold both of the victim's hands behind his back, while Rogelio stabbed Nonoy on the chest. After the first thrust, the two witnesses ran away. Gerry told a neighbor about the incident but did not report to the police out of fear, and he learned the next day that Nonoy had died.

On the morning of the first of January, 1998, the victim's father was awakened by news that his son had been found dead near the barangay hall, his body bearing many stab wounds and showing traces of having been washed of blood. The autopsy disclosed thirty-four injuries, twenty-eight of them stab wounds, several of them fatal, and the medico-legal officer opined that the wounds could have been inflicted by two or more persons. The family incurred expenses for the cemetery lot, the coffin, and the wake. For their part, the accused offered denial and alibi: Rogelio claimed he was home with his family from six in the evening to midnight, while Ramil claimed he was roasting a pig's head elsewhere until nine, then attended mass and stayed at his girlfriend's house until three in the morning, with witnesses corroborating both accounts.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Gerry Francisco, was too unreliable, contradictory, and unbelievable to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly appreciated against the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not convicting Rogelio of homicide only and in not acquitting Ramil.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and penalizes murder, and it is the provision under which the accused were charged and convicted:

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.

The case turns on whether the killing was attended by taking advantage of superior strength, the circumstance that raised the killing from homicide to murder and fixed the penalty at reclusion perpetua.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal had no merit and that the eyewitness testimony was sufficient. The supposed contradiction about Ramil holding the hair of Amor was belied by the testimony that it was the victim who was holding her hair. The gap between the single stab the witness saw and the many wounds found on the body was explained by the fact that the witness ran away after the first thrust and could not have seen the rest. The delay in reporting was excused by fear, and the Court held that the failure of witnesses to volunteer information to law enforcement does not necessarily impair their credibility. The omission of some details from the sworn affidavit did not destroy the testimony, because affidavits taken ex parte are almost always incomplete, and minor inconsistencies do not impair credibility so long as the witness is consistent on the principal occurrence and on the identity of the assailants. The Court also held that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even for murder, and it gave great weight to the trial court's assessment of credibility.

On alibi and denial, the Court held that alibi must be established with clear and convincing evidence, and for it to prosper the accused must prove not only absence from the scene but also that it was physically impossible to be present. Here, Ramil admitted his girlfriend's house was only about thirty minutes away, and Rogelio admitted he was in his own house, where the stabbing occurred. Denial, in turn, is intrinsically weak and cannot outweigh positive identification. The Court stated the governing rule:

Where there is positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, their denial and alibi cannot be sustained.

On the second issue, the Court held that abuse of superior strength was present. It found it hard to believe that Ramil held the victim's hands merely to soothe tempers, since it would have been more logical to restrain his own armed father or to stand between the two men. Restraining the unarmed victim was a strategy to ensure the killing and to deny him any means of defense, and the number of wounds reflected excessive force. The Court stated the test:

To take advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders' deliberate intent to do so.

On the third issue, which the Court took up with the first, the prayer for conviction of homicide only and for acquittal was necessarily denied, since the qualifying circumstance was duly established and the identification was positive.

Doctrine

A bar candidate should retain these rules. First, alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive, clear, and convincing testimony identifying the accused, and alibi requires proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene. Second, denial is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given greater weight than credible testimony on affirmative matters. Third, the testimony of a single eyewitness, if positive and credible, suffices to convict even for murder. Fourth, delay in reporting a crime and omissions in an ex parte affidavit do not impair credibility when explained, because affidavits are almost always incomplete. Fifth, abuse of superior strength under Article 248 requires a deliberate intent to take advantage of greater number or strength, shown by the use of excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim, as when armed assailants seize an unarmed victim's hands to deny him any defense.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court in full, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize the line that alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification, especially where the accused fails to prove the impossibility of his presence at the scene. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of a lone eyewitness and the elements of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance in murder.