G.R. No. 95939; June 17, 1996
FACTS:
On October 6, 1987, appellant Florentino Bracamonte, together with Manuel Sapon and Ernie Cabral, stood charged with the crime of Robbery with Double Homicide after they were positively identified by Violeta Parnala, the owner of the house and the mother of one of the victims.
Parnala and her husband arrived home from the Kingdom of Jehovah’s Witnesses and were confounded when their housemaid refused to heed their call from the outside. Parnala was surprised to see three men emerge from inside the house. The three men then dashed off.
Found inside the house were the bodies of 6-year old Jay Vee and the Paranala’s housemaid, Rosalina. Some items, amounting to P1,100, were also found to have been missing. Thus, the charges.
Cabral was tried and convicted of the crime in 1989 while Sapon and Bracamonte were at large until the latter’s arrest in October of the same year. Appellant Bracamonte denied the charges and interposed the defense of alibi. Appellant also contended that there was no circumstantial evidence that will link him in the crime and that Parnala couldn’t possible know him to merit identification.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bracamonte’s defense of alibi and Parnala’s lack of personal affiliation with Bracamonte are worth discharging the appellant of the crime.
RULING:
It has been said that the defense of alibi is inherently weak since it is very easy to concoct. In order that this defense may prosper, it must be established clearly and convincingly not only that the accused is elsewhere at the time of the commission of the crime, but that likewise it would have been physically impossible for him to be at the vicinity thereof. In the instant case, appellant Bracamonte tragically failed to show, by clear and convincing proof, that it was physically impossible for him to be at the victims’ house at the time the crime was committed.
Positive identification by an independent witness who has not been shown to have any reason or motive to testify falsely must prevail over simple denials and the unacceptable alibi of the accused. Appellant himself admitted that he was not aware of any reason or motive why Parnala should testify against him. There is also nothing in law and jurisprudence which requires that in order for there to be a positive identification by a prosecution witness of a felon, he must know the latter personally. If this were the case, the prosecution would rarely get any conviction since, in most instances, the perpetrator of the crime is unrelated to the victim. The witness’ degree of closeness or familiarity with the accused, although may be helpful, is by no means an indispensable requirement for purposes of positive identification.
The Court noted that appellant, together with his two (2) other co-accused, were charged and convicted of robbery with double homicide. The charge and the corresponding conviction should have been for robbery with homicide only although two persons were killed. In this complex crime, the penalty prescribed in Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is not affected by the number of killings accompanying the robbery. The multiplicity of the victims slain, though, is appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
Thanks for this! Currently a freshman on MLC
ReplyDelete