PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEX CASEMIRO AND JOSE CATALAN, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Casemiro versus People

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Alex Casemiro and Jose Catalan, Jr. for the killing of Jeffrey Hermo. The two were charged with murder, convicted by the trial court, and their conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. They came to the Supreme Court insisting that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and attacking the testimony of the victim's common-law wife, the lone eyewitness. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one place the rules on the sufficiency of a single eyewitness, the weight of alibi and denial against positive identification, the appreciation of treachery, and the rule that an aggravating circumstance not alleged in the Information cannot affect liability.

Procedural History

Alex Casemiro and Jose Catalan, Jr. were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Gandara, Samar, Branch 41. When arraigned, both pleaded not guilty, and after pre-trial, trial proceeded. The trial court, in its Decision dated May 26, 2015, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength, and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with an award of actual damages and moral damages. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, assailing their conviction. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated October 28, 2016, affirmed the conviction, holding that all the elements of the crime were proven and that treachery attended the commission of the crime. It ruled, however, that abuse of superior strength could not be appreciated as a separate generic aggravating circumstance because it would be absorbed by treachery, and it modified the civil aspect by increasing and adjusting the damages. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the parties, after being required to file supplemental briefs, filed manifestations adopting their earlier briefs and dispensing with supplemental briefs.

Facts

On the evening of April 16, 2010, at about nine o'clock in the evening, in Barangay Catorse de Agosto, Gandara, Samar, Alex Casemiro and Jose Catalan, Jr. went to the house of the victim, Jeffrey Hermo, and invited him to butcher a duck. Casemiro was already drunk when he extended the invitation. About twenty minutes later, Mary Ann Hermo, the victim's common-law wife, decided to look for her husband and asked her fourteen-year-old brother, Christopher Belino, to accompany her.

In the nearby Barangay of Ngoso, Mary Ann witnessed, at a distance of fifteen meters, Casemiro stab her husband five times on the chest with a four-inch knife while Catalan held her husband's arms. Her husband fell down, and Catalan then stabbed him eight times on the back with an ice pick. The place was illuminated by a big bulb atop a Samar Electric Cooperative post located eight meters from where the stabbing took place. Mary Ann shouted for help but no one came, because it was nighttime and there were no houses nearby. Her brother also witnessed the incident but only cried because he was afraid.

Mary Ann reported the incident to the police of Gandara, Samar. The investigating officer, Police Officer 1 Christopher Prudenciado, testified that a pair of black slippers belonging to the victim, and an ice pick and a pair of white slippers belonging to Casemiro, were found at the scene. The victim's body was brought to the Gandara District Hospital, where the autopsy showed that he died of hemorrhagic shock secondary to massive blood loss due to stab wounds at the back and on the chest, totaling thirteen. Catalan was arrested, while Casemiro voluntarily went to the police station. For their defense, both denied the charge and interposed alibi, each claiming to have been elsewhere at the time of the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of a single eyewitness.
• Whether or not the testimony of Mary Ann Hermo was unreliable, uncorroborated, and incredible, such that it should not have been made the basis of conviction.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi and denial should prevail over the positive identification made by the eyewitness.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing.
• Whether or not the lower courts properly made a pronouncement on abuse of superior strength.
• Whether or not the award of damages was proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines and penalizes murder, and 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 perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 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 qualifying circumstances, including treachery, that raise a killing to murder, and fixes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution clearly established that the victim was stabbed to death and that the accused were the perpetrators. To successfully prosecute murder under Article 248, the following elements must be established: that a person was killed; that the accused killed him or her; that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. All these were shown.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the attack on Mary Ann's testimony. Her account was clear and unwavering on direct examination and resolute on cross-examination. The claim that she identified the accused only through what other people said was uncorroborated and self-serving. The argument that she could not have witnessed the incident deserved scant consideration, since no proof was shown that her vision was hindered by the lighting condition, and there was no allegation that her vision was obstructed or that her distance from the scene impaired her ability to identify the perpetrators. The Court held that where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased, her assertion as to the identity of the malefactors should be accepted, more so when the witness is a near relative. As to her reaction after the incident, the Court held that there is no standard behavior or reaction for people who witness traumatic events, for different people react differently to a given situation.

On the third issue, the Court held that alibi and denial are outweighed by positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness. Where there is the least possibility of the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that treachery was present. The offenders invited the victim under the pretense of butchering a duck and brought him to a place where there were no houses nearby in the middle of the night; the victim was unarmed while the accused wielded a knife and an ice pick; the victim was stabbed multiple times on the chest, held by the arms by the other, and again stabbed multiple times on the back even after he had fallen down. These circumstances indubitably proved treachery, because the execution of the attack gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and the means of execution was deliberately adopted.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the pronouncements on abuse of superior strength were unnecessary, because that circumstance was not even alleged in the Information. An aggravating circumstance, even if proven during trial, cannot affect the liability of the accused when the Information fails to allege such circumstance. In any event, the crime was already qualified by treachery, which was alleged and proven.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the award of damages decreed by the appellate court was proper under prevailing jurisprudence: seventy-five thousand pesos as moral damages, seventy-five thousand pesos as civil indemnity, seventy-five thousand pesos as exemplary damages, and fifty thousand pesos as temperate damages, with interest at six percent per annum on all amounts from finality of the Decision until full payment.

Doctrine

A conviction may rest on the sole testimony of a prosecution witness, provided that testimony is clear, categorical, consistent, and untainted by any ill motive. Alibi and denial are outweighed by positive identification that is categorical and consistent, and where there is the least possibility of the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water. Where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased, the assertion as to the identity of the malefactors should be accepted, more so when the witness is a near relative. There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience, so the reaction of a witness after a traumatic event cannot be used to discredit her. Treachery under Article 248 requires that the offenders employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the victim might make. Finally, an aggravating circumstance, even if proven during trial, cannot affect the liability of the accused when the Information fails to allege such circumstance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals, so the conviction of both accused for murder and the damages awarded stand.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi and denial are outweighed by positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and untainted by any ill motive, and an aggravating circumstance not alleged in the Information cannot affect liability. Examiners like to use this case on the sufficiency of a lone eyewitness, the rule on alibi, the appreciation of treachery, and the requirement that aggravating circumstances be alleged in the Information.