THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO SOMERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Somera

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Romeo Somera, a criminal case for murder arising from the fatal stabbing of Ernesto Sarabia at a barangay wake in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. The accused was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death, and the case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review. It matters to the reviewee for three reasons: it is a compact lesson on the credibility of eyewitnesses and the weakness of alibi, it fixes the elements of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, and it shows how the 1987 Constitution and the retroactive reach of a new rule on indemnity reshape a judgment of conviction.

Procedural History

Romeo Somera was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, Branch Twenty Four. When arraigned in March 1980 he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentenced him to death, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Ernesto Sarabia in the amount of twelve thousand pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.

Because the penalty imposed was death, the record was elevated to the Supreme Court for review. The Court noted that the death penalty was no longer imposable under the 1987 Constitution and asked the accused whether he wished to continue the case as an appealed case. He manifested that he was willing to accept reclusion perpetua. His counsel de oficio challenged the validity of that waiver on the ground that it was made without the advice of counsel. The Court took note of the comment and considered the case as an appealed case, thereafter resolving the assigned errors on their merits.

Facts

In the evening of November 12, 1979, between nine and ten o'clock, Avelino Somera, Pedro Balois, Ernesto Sarabia and Arsenio Saquiton were seated on bamboo benches at the store of Virgie Ballete in Barangay Sabang, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, attending the wake of Perlito Villegas. The house where the deceased lay in state was about eight meters away and was lighted by two optimus lamps, one inside and one outside the house. A kerosene lamp hung south of the store.

While the four were conversing about the planting of garlic, Romeo Somera suddenly appeared from behind Ernesto Sarabia, who was wearing a buri hat, and stabbed him with a Batangas knife at the upper portion of his back and on the right side of his forehead. After being hit in the forehead, Sarabia turned around, stood up, walked westward and fell face downward about five meters away. The assailant hurriedly left. Felicitas Sarabia, the victim's wife, cradled him; he removed the knife from the left side of his face, and he was brought by tricycle to a clinic, where he expired three hours later.

An autopsy conducted the next day by Doctor Jaime Gorospe disclosed a puncture wound on the left side of the head reaching the brain, and a puncture wound at the back along the left side of the vertebral column, three and one half inches deep, hitting the lung and its blood vessel. The accused interposed alibi, claiming that he was visiting his sick brother in Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan from November 10 and returned to Sabang only on November 14, 1979.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt, considering his defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the accused to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of twelve thousand pesos and to pay the costs.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as referred to in the judgment, 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.

The Court applies this provision to classify the killing as murder qualified by treachery, and to fix the penalty in its maximum period because of the generic aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged inconsistencies between Avelino Somera and Arsenio Saquiton concerned only minor details, such as whether the group sat north or west of the store and whether the store was open or closed. Such minor discrepancies are to be expected from uncoached witnesses and do not impair the probative value of their testimonies. Avelino Somera, seated beside the victim, heard a cracking sound and saw Romeo Somera standing just a foot behind Ernesto Sarabia; Saquiton saw the accused appear from behind the victim and stab him twice, and even identified the Batangas knife. The place was sufficiently illuminated by the kerosene lamp and the two optimus lamps, whose light passed through the holes of the bamboo wall. No improper motive was shown why the witnesses would falsely testify, and the findings of the trial court on credibility, having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, are accorded great weight. The failure to present Virgie Ballete drew no unfavorable inference, since her testimony would only be corroborative.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi. Alibi is at best a weak defense, and it must be supported by the most convincing evidence. Here it rested mainly on the testimony of the accused himself and of his wife and brother, which is tainted with bias. More importantly, for alibi to prosper the accused must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. The travel time between Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan and Cabugao, Ilocos Sur is at most five hours by bus, so it was not physically impossible for him to be present on the night of the killing. Alibi cannot prevail over the clear and positive identification by the eyewitnesses.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the award of indemnity but increased it to thirty thousand pesos in accordance with recent jurisprudence. On the crime and penalty, the Court agreed that the killing was murder qualified by treachery, there being treachery when the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim was unable to defend himself, thus insuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. Evident premeditation was not established. Recidivism was properly appreciated, since the trial court could take judicial notice of the finality of the judgment in the previous homicide case that it itself had rendered, and recidivism had been alleged in the information. With one generic aggravating circumstance not offset by any mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be applied in its maximum period; but because the 1987 Constitution prohibits the imposition of death, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that refer only to minor details do not impair the probative value of their testimonies, and where no improper motive is shown, the identification of the accused as the assailant is given full faith and credit. Second, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and are not to be disturbed absent overlooked facts of substance that would affect the result. Third, alibi is a weak defense; it must be supported by the most convincing evidence, it cannot rest mainly on the accused and his immediate relatives, and it must show that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime. Fourth, there is treachery when the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to defend himself, insuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant, and treachery qualifies the killing as murder under Article 248. Fifth, a trial court may take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment in a case previously pending before and decided by it, so that recidivism may be appreciated even without the formal offer of the original judgment of conviction. Sixth, with the prohibition on the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed, and the civil indemnity for the death of the victim is fixed at thirty thousand pesos.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment finding Romeo Somera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, but modified it by sentencing him to reclusion perpetua instead of death and by increasing the indemnity to the heirs of the victim to thirty thousand pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi is at best a weak defense, and it cannot prevail over the clear and positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses. Examiners use this case to test the credibility of eyewitnesses despite minor inconsistencies, the requisites of alibi, the nature of treachery under Article 248, and the effect of the 1987 Constitution on the penalty of death.