PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SERGIO SERENIO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The accused, Sergio Serenio, has
appealed the decision dated August 17,
1981 of the Circuit Criminal Court, Cebu City,
in Case No. CCC XIV-2403, convicting him of Murder, qualified by treachery, and
sentencing him to suffer –

“x x x
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with
the accessory penalties of the law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Perfecto Jacalan in the sum of P12,000.00, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 15, Rollo.)

The facts are as follows:

The victim Perfecto Jacalan, a member
of the Barangay Assistance Force, Barangay
Sambag I, Cebu City,
arrived home with his friend Ruben Aranco at around
11:30 in the evening of March 29, 1981. 
He was hungry and he asked for food from his wife Gregoria
who said there was none.  The victim then
decided to buy some viands from a “carinderia”
at the nearby South Expressway Bus terminal located at the left side of Rizal Avenue.  His house is situated in the interior of Rizal Avenue,
third from accused-appellant’s house. 
The deceased Perfecto Jacalan was accompanied
by Ruben Aranco and his wife Gregoria
Jacalan, with the former walking to his right and his
wife behind him.  As they were passing in
front of the appellant’s house, the latter suddenly appeared and fired a gun at
Jacalan hitting him in the left temple.  The victim staggered and fell to the ground
lifeless.  Ruben Aranco
tried to help his companion but the appellant confronted him and pointed the
gun at him.  Frightened, Ruben Aranco fled from the scene of the crime.  Gregoria rushed to
her husband’s side and cradled his head. 
She heard Sergio Serenio’s wife ask her
husband, “Nganong imong
man nang gipusil” (Why
did you shoot them?) to which the accused-appellant replied:  “Kinsa man god
sila” (Who are they anyway?) (p.
4, Appellee’s Brief.) Gregoria
shouted for help but nobody came.  So she
ran to her house to summon help.

Receiving an alarm report of the incident at approximately 12:00 to 12:15 midnight, police officer Flaviano Samson and his men at the Intelligence Section of
the Central Police Station proceeded to the crime scene.  The victim’s widow and Ruben Aranco informed the police that the gun wielder was the
appellant.  Corporal Samson and his
companions arrested the appellant at around 12:20
midnight in his house
and brought him to the police headquarters for a confrontation with the
witnesses.  Appellant was drunk and even
challenged the policemen to a fistfight. 
Both witnesses positively identified him as the gun wielder, but he
denied having committed the crime.

The body of the deceased was autopsied at the Cosmopolitan
Funeral Homes at Cebu
City by Dr. Tomas P. Refe, a Senior Medico–Legal Officer of the NBI, Cebu City
at 3:45 o’clock in the
afternoon of March 30, 1981.  The necropsy report findings, partly reads:

“x x x Hemorrhage, intracranial, extensive severe.

“Heart chambers contain small amount of clotted blood.

“Lungs, congested and edematous,
cut sections show reddish congested cut surfaces.

“Brain and other visceral organs,
slightly congested.

“Stomach, empty.

“CAUSE OF DEATH:  Hemorrhage,
intracranial, extensive, severe, secondary to gunshot wound on the head.

“REMARKS” One (1) deformed bullet submitted to the
Ballistics Section for examination.” (p. 32,
Decision.)

The version of the defense as testified to by the appellant and his
wife, Leonila Serenio, is
as follows:

That her husband, a dental technician, worked on orders for
dentures the whole day of March 21, 1981. 
On that fateful evening, accused went to sleep at 8:00 o’clock P.M., until he was
awakened by the police at dawn the following day.  That sometime before midnight, she was awakened by the sound of a gunshot in front of their house, directly below
their bedroom window.  She slowly and
cautiously peeped out of their window and saw a person running away from the
place where she heard the explosion come from. 
The person jumped over the island in the middle of the street and ran to
the opposite side of the street. 
Notwithstanding the incident, she did not wake up her husband nor did
she call for any help.  Five minutes later,
she heard shouts indicating the discovery of the body of a dead man.  She transferred to another window and from
there she saw directly below her window the body of a man lying face up and
holding a piece of wood measuring 24x2x20. 
Gregoria Jacalan who
was standing over the body took the piece of wood and threw it away.

When she asked Gregoria Jacalan what happened, the latter did not reply.  She did not see Ruben Aranco
during or after the incident.

Significant in the testimony of Leonila
Serenio was her revelation that on the night before
the fatal shooting of Jacalan, Sergio Serenio, their son, and a guest were joined by
Perfecto Jacalan and Ruben Aranco
in a drinking session.  During the
drinking spree Perfecto Jacalan tore off and threw
away the cigarettes of Serenio’s guest.  Sergio Serenio was
outraged by the affront not only to his guest but also to himself.  But Gregoria made a
timely appearance and forcibly dragged her husband away, thus preventing a
violent quarrel between Serenio and Jacalan from erupting.

The accused-appellant was charged with Murder for the fatal
shooting of Perfecto Jacalan.  The information reads:

“That on or about the 29th day of March, 1981 at about
11:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a
firearm, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill, with treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there attack, assault and fire shots upon
one Perfecto Jacalan with said firearm hitting him on
his head, thereby inflicting upon him the following physical injuries:

‘HEMORRHAGE, INTRACRANIAL, EXTENSIVE, SEVERE SECONDARY TO
GUNSHOT WOUND AT THE HEAD.’

as a
consequence of which said Perfecto Jacalan died
instantaneously.

“Contrary to law.” (p. 3, Rollo.)

Upon arraignment, the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded
“not guilty.”

After the trial, the court found him guilty as charged.

In his appeal to this Court, the accused alleges that the trial
court erred:

1.  in
finding him guilty of murder;

2.  in
not upholding his defense of alibi; and

3.  in not considering the
mitigating circumstance of “intoxication” in his favor.

The appeal is without merit.

We affirm the trial court’s finding that the accused’s
guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused was positively identified by the prosecution’s
witnesses.  His own wife (Leonila Serenio) revealed his
possible motive for killing the deceased who had allegedly embarrassed him in
front of his guest by tearing up and destroying the cigarettes offered to him
by said guest during a drinking session in the house of the accused on the
night before he was killed (Decision, p. 43 of Appellant’s Brief).

The accused’s defense that he slept
through the shooting which occurred under his bedroom window and that he was
not awakened by the shouts for help, nor by the
commotion that followed, is incredible.  (Decision, p. 43 of Appellant’s Brief.)

Treachery was correctly appreciated by the trial court for the
shooting was sudden, unexpected, and done at close-range when the victim had no
expectation whatsoever that he would be attacked.  (People vs. Valdemora,
102 SCRA 171.)

The trial court properly rejected the appellant’s alibi that he
was asleep in his room just above the scene of the crime when the shooting
transpired.  An alibi cannot prevail over
the positive identification made by the eyewitnesses, his neighbors Ruben Aranco and Gregoria Jacalan, who knew him well. 
His alibi, corroborated only by his wife, is extremely weak.  For an alibi to be acceptable, it must count
with strong corroboration.  (People vs. Bermoy, 105 SCRA 106.) Considering that the shooting
occurred beside his house, it was entirely possible for the accused to have
gone down from his house to shoot the deceased and rush back to his bed
afterwards.

There is no merit in the appellant’s contention that, as the
trial court found that he shot Perfecto Jacalan
“in a moment of extreme inebriation,” he should have been convicted
of homicide only, NOT murder, with the mitigating circumstance of
“intoxication.” (p. 25, Appellee’s
Brief.) Having failed to prove that the liquor he drank impaired his
mental faculties and that his drinking was not habitual or subsequent to the
plan to commit the felony, his intoxication was not a mitigating circumstance
in the commission of the crime (People vs. Baduso, 60
SCRA 60; People vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 93.)

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting the
appellant, Sergio Serenio, is affirmed, except the
award of civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Perfecto Jacalan which is hereby increased to P30,000.  Costs against the
accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.