PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OSCAR OCAYA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Ocaya

The Case

This is People versus Ocaya, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Oscar Ocaya for the killing of Mario Origines. The accused was convicted of murder by the trial court and the conviction was affirmed on appeal, but the case reaches the Supreme Court by a special route: the appellate court believed that the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is life imprisonment, should be imposed, and so it certified the case to the Supreme Court for final determination instead of entering judgment itself. The case matters for two reasons. First, it illustrates the certification mechanism that sends criminal cases involving death or life imprisonment straight to the Supreme Court. Second, it is a compact review of the rules on positive identification of an accused, the delay of witnesses in naming a culprit, and the weakness of alibi as a defense.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court, Branch Twelve, in Oroquieta City. That court found Oscar Ocaya guilty of murder and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from fourteen years, eight months and one day, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. It also ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of 30,000 pesos, to pay 3,000 pesos in actual expenses, to suffer the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, specifically its Second Criminal Cases Division. On June 10, 1986, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction but modified the penalty. It held that murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is penalized by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, and that with no aggravating or mitigating circumstance the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. It also held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply. Because the penalty it believed should be imposed was life imprisonment, the appellate court refrained from entering judgment and certified the case to the Supreme Court for final determination. The Supreme Court accepted and docketed the case by a Resolution dated July 14, 1986.

Facts

At about nine o'clock in the evening of March 7, 1982, in Barangay Lawa-an, Aloran, Misamis Occidental, the household of Bonifacia Varquez was retiring for the night. The occupants included Mario Origines, Julita Origines Bulaga, German Origines, Junior, and Rufina Bagalanon. A man called out for Boning, referring to Bonifacia Varquez, and told her that a close relative, Nonoy Velasco, had met an accident. Asked who he was, the caller said he was Ronnie, the driver of the motorcab of Doming.

The occupants switched on the lights. Mario Origines opened the door and was immediately stabbed by a man wearing a raincoat with a hood covering his head, using a long bolo. Mario fought back and grappled with his attacker. In the scuffle the hood was pulled down and the assailant's face was exposed. Julita Bulaga and German Origines, Junior, saw the face and identified the assailant as Oscar Ocaya, also known as Cocoy. Mario shouted to his younger brother German for help, but the accused held German by the hair. German freed himself, ran out, and shouted for help. When he and the neighbors returned, the accused was gone and Mario was bloodied and dead. The autopsy showed the cause of death as shock due to profuse internal and external hemorrhage due to stab wounds.

The police reports of March 7 and 8, 1982 noted that the culprit was unknown but that the case was under rigid follow up. Three days later, on March 10, 1982, after conferring with the victim's mother, who had arrived from Zamboanga del Sur, the two young eyewitnesses gathered enough courage to tell the police that Oscar Ocaya was the assailant. The accused's defense was alibi: he claimed he was elsewhere at the time of the crime.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused was positively identified as the assailant despite the police reports initially stating that the culprit was unknown.
• Whether or not the delay of the eyewitnesses in naming the accused impaired their credibility.
• Whether or not the trial court properly appreciated the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, considering their relationship to the victim and the change of presiding judge.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi should be credited.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed for the crime of murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed by the appellate court, defines and penalizes the crime of murder. It bears on the case because it fixes the range of penalties from which the correct penalty must be drawn:

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. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Section 12 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, quoted by the appellate court, governs the certification of cases where the penalty of death or life imprisonment should be imposed. It bears on the case because it is the procedural basis for sending the case to the Supreme Court:

Whenever in any criminal case submitted to a division the said division should be of the opinion that the penalty of death or life imprisonment should be imposed, the said court shall refrain from entering judgment thereon and shall forthwith certify the case to the Supreme Court for final determination, as if the case had been brought before it on appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no question about the positive identification of the accused. The police reports stating that the culprit was unknown were understandable: when the policemen arrived, the teenage witnesses were still in a state of shock after witnessing the killing, and the accused was still at large, which deterred them from revealing his identity for fear of their lives. The Court noted that the witnesses saw the stabbing from about one to two fathoms away, that the place was well lighted, and that the hood of the raincoat was pulled down, exposing the assailant's face. Both witnesses and the accused himself admitted that they knew one another as neighbors.

On the second issue, the Court held that the delay in naming the accused did not impair the witnesses' credibility. Any delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation, when adequately explained, does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses. Here the delay was explained by shock and fear, and the witnesses came forward after conferring with the victim's mother.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court properly appreciated the testimonies. There was no motive on the part of the eyewitnesses to testify falsely, and the trial court found no bias or prejudice despite their relationship to the victim. As to the change of presiding judge, the judge who penned the decision had observed the demeanor of the witnesses when they were recalled as rebuttal witnesses and found them credible.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the defense of alibi must fail. The accused did not prove that he was in another place for such a period of time that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. He was only about 100 meters away from the house of Bonifacia Varquez, and the crime was committed at 9:20 in the evening, so it was not physically impossible for him to be present. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by the direct and corroborative testimonies of eyewitnesses.

On the fifth issue, the Court agreed with the appellate court that the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The crime is murder under Article 248, penalized by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty is imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, positive identification by eyewitnesses who knew the accused and saw him clearly prevails over police reports initially stating that the culprit was unknown, especially where the delay is explained by shock and fear. Second, delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation, when adequately explained, does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses. Third, alibi is a weak defense that must be established by full, clear and satisfactory evidence, and it cannot prevail over positive identification by eyewitnesses. Fourth, for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, where there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply. Fifth, under Section 12 of Rule 124, when an appellate division is of the opinion that death or life imprisonment should be imposed, it must refrain from entering judgment and certify the case to the Supreme Court for final determination.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of Oscar Ocaya for murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of 30,000 pesos and to pay 3,000 pesos in actual expenses, and to pay the costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by eyewitnesses who clearly saw the accused, and that delay in naming a culprit, when explained by shock and fear, does not destroy credibility. Examiners like to use this case on the rules of alibi, on the credibility of eyewitnesses who initially withheld the identity of the assailant, and on the certification of cases involving life imprisonment to the Supreme Court.