PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RANDY ALABADO Y DAVID, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Alabado versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Randy Alabado y David, a criminal appeal by the accused from a judgment of conviction for murder and frustrated murder. The case matters to the reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules on the first duty of the prosecution, which is the identity of the accused, on positive identification by witnesses who knew the offender, on the weight of denial and the convenient claim of loss of consciousness, and on the respect owed to the factual findings of the trial court. It is a study in how the Supreme Court treats credibility when the assailant was no stranger to his victims.

Procedural History

Two separate Informations, one for murder and one for frustrated murder, were filed against Randy Alabado before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, and both were raffled to Branch 24 of that court. When arraigned with the assistance of counsel, the accused entered a common plea of not guilty in both cases, and a joint trial followed. The trial court rendered a Joint Decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction with modifications, finding him guilty of murder qualified by treachery in the first case and of frustrated murder in the second. The accused then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review, assigning as errors the giving of full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the appreciation of treachery while failing to consider intoxication as a mitigating circumstance.

Facts

On the tenth of May in the year 2000, the Ampaya family was celebrating the birthday of Aries Ampaya at their home in Barangay Barangka Itaas, Mandaluyong City. A drinking session ran into the evening at the terrace of the boarding house beside the family home, and Randy Alabado, a boarder of the Ampayas for six years and the brother of Evelyn Ampaya's fiancé, was among those present and even helped prepare the appetizers. Shortly after eleven o'clock in the evening, he left the group unnoticed. Minutes later the music from the stereo in the main house kept going off and on, until Arnel came out terrified and shouting, and the guests rushed inside.

Unknown to them, a terrible thing had already happened inside. Evelyn Ampaya had awakened to find a man seated with his head bowed on the headboard of the bed beside hers. She drew closer and recognized him as Randy Alabado, who was holding a knife. She ran to the living room, but he chased her, embraced her, and kissed her nape. When she cried out for her father, Ricardo Ampaya, the accused stabbed her several times on the chin, eyebrow, back, stomach, thigh, and arms as she parried the blows. Ricardo came out of his room and shouted, Randy, why are you doing that to my daughter, but the accused turned on him and met him with a fatal stab on the chest, followed by more stabs. Edgar Ampaya, awakened by a thud, saw the accused stabbing their fallen father, pulled him away, and wrestled with him for the knife until neighbors and visitors helped pin him down.

Ricardo Ampaya died upon reaching the hospital, while Evelyn survived after confinement and medical attendance, sustaining thirteen stab wounds and two lacerated wounds, and losing the vision of her right eye. The accused, for his part, testified that he had been drinking, felt groggy, was hit on the head, and remembered nothing until he woke at the police station. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both believed the prosecution.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused was sufficiently and positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as the perpetrator of the crimes.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, and whether or not intoxication should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as referred to in the judgment of conviction, defines and penalizes murder:

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 is the provision under which the accused was convicted of murder, qualified by treachery.

Article 6, first paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code, as also referred to in the judgment, defines the stages of execution:

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are defined in this article. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

This is the provision under which the accused was convicted of frustrated murder for the attack on Evelyn Ampaya, who survived through timely medical attendance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution had discharged the burden of identification, because the identity of the accused is the first duty of the prosecution. Evelyn had known the accused intimately and for years, as her family's boarder and her fiancé's brother, and the light from the sala and the aquarium allowed her to recognize him. The Court stressed that a startling occurrence creates an indelible impression in the mind that can be recalled vividly, and that family members who witness the killing of a loved one strive to remember the faces of the assailants. Even granting doubt in the bedroom, the accused was certainly identified as her attacker in the living room, where there was but one assailant.

On the second issue, the Court found no ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, and held that the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of testimonies and assessment of probative weight, are given high respect if not conclusive effect absent cogent facts ignored or misconstrued. Minor inconsistencies between the testimonies of Evelyn and Joy were to be ignored, as errorless testimony can hardly be expected from witnesses recounting a harrowing experience, and such discrepancies may even enhance credibility as honest and unrehearsed.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the defense of denial and the claim of loss of consciousness as a convenient excuse, following its ruling in People against Gaspar, and sustained the conviction. The Court found the testimonies sufficient to establish guilt beyond moral certainty of doubt, and the wounds themselves spoke eloquently of the crime.

Doctrine

The identity of the accused is the first duty of the prosecution, and positive identification by a witness who knew the offender for years, under circumstances that allowed recognition, is entitled to full weight. A startling occurrence creates an indelible impression in the mind that can be recalled vividly, and relatives of a victim naturally strive to remember and identify the malefactor to obtain justice. Denial and the convenient claim of loss of consciousness are weak defenses that cannot prevail against categorical eyewitness accounts. Factual findings of the trial court on credibility are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless it ignored or misconstrued cogent facts of substance that would alter the outcome. Minor inconsistencies in the accounts of witnesses do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence, so long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points. These rules are applied through Article 248 and Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the killing qualified by treachery is murder, and the attack that would have produced death but for timely medical attendance is frustrated murder.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, so the People won and the accused stands convicted of murder and frustrated murder, with the penalties and damages as modified by the appellate court.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the identity of the accused is the first duty of the prosecution, and that a startling occurrence creates an indelible impression in the mind. Examiners use this case on positive identification by acquaintances, on the weakness of denial and loss of consciousness, and on the deference given to the trial court's credibility findings.