prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Appellant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan when Jesus was murdered. His own testimony revealed that the distance between the locus delicti and Dasmariñas City, Cavite is only a four to five hour regular commute which could be traveled easily in the wee hours of the morning.
Furthermore, the only person that could corroborate appellant's alibi is his friend and former co-worker, Paul Maglaque. It has been consistently given less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives since jurisprudence has laid down that, in order for corroboration to be credible, the same must be offered preferably by disinterested witnesses. Clearly, due to his friendship with appellant, Maglaque cannot be considered as a disinterested witness.
According to jurisprudence, to be convicted of murder, the following must be established: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide.
Contrary to appellant's assertion, the qualifying circumstance of treachery did attend the killing of Jesus. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself. Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. In this case, there was no way for Jesus to even be forewarned of the intended stabbing of his body both from the people seated in the side car and those seated behind him. What is decisive in an appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.
Contrary to the findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is to be appreciated in the case at bar, it is not to be appreciated as such. As per jurisprudence, when the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter. Thus, having proven treachery attended the killing, then the circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be separately appreciated against the accused-appellant.
COMPILED CASE DIGEST | DE CASTRO| ATTY. B.AMAGO IV| 2015 BAR 35 7. PEOPLE vs. BURCE [G.R. No. 201732. March 26, 2014.]
[Rape] FACTS:
Five informations were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, charging Burce of rape against his minor daughter, AAA. The five cases were consolidated and jointly tried. Burce pleaded not guilty to all five rape charges. The prosecution presented as witnesses during trial: (1) AAA, the victim; (2) BBB, AAA’s mother and Burce’s wife; (3) CCC, AAA’s sister-in-law; and (4) Dr. Raoul Alcantara (Alcantara), physician-medico legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation. Alcantara’s report was also presented stating that (1) no extra-genital physical injury was noted at the time of examination, and (2) the medico-genital findings show definitive signs of previous blunt force injury to the hymen. Evidence for the defense solely consisted of accused-appellant Burce’s testimony.
The RTC rendered its decision on April 2, 2009, convicting Burce of rape only in Criminal Case No. RTC’08-0169 and acquitting him of the four other charges, as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Burce appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC judgment of conviction against Burce.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of qualified rape.
RULING: The appeal has no merit.
The Court stresses that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each of them should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is required to establish, by the necessary quantum of proof, the elements of rape for each charge. Therefore, Burce’s acquittal in the four other charges does not necessarily result in his acquittal in RTC’08-0169. While the prosecution presented the same witnesses for all the cases, the content, credibility, and weight of their testimonies differ for each charge.
Burce’s conviction in RTC’08-0169 is dependent upon AAA’s testimony recounting how her father raped her on December 10, 2005. After a careful review, the Court is convinced that AAA’s unwavering narration of how she was raped on December 10, 2005, together with her positive identification of her own father as the one who raped her, are worthy of belief.
Burce’s defenses consisted of denial and alibi. He claims he was out of the house at the time of the alleged rape, driving a tricycle to make a living. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Burce failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been home on the night of December 10, 2005. Not only was his alibi uncorroborated, his work as tricycle driver would have allowed him to go home with ease anytime he wanted. BBB, Burce’s wife testified that Burce would go home late at night to sleep and just leave early in the morning. Burce’s carnal knowledge of AAA was established by AAA’s testimony, corroborated by Dr. Alcantara’s finding of blunt force injuries to AAA’s hymen, probably caused by penetration by an erect male organ. Also based on AAA’s testimony, Burce used force against her by holding
COMPILED CASE DIGEST | DE CASTRO| ATTY. B.AMAGO IV| 2015 BAR 36