PEOPLE Vs GONZALES ET. AL.
G.R. No.: 80762 March 19, 1990
Facts:
At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of February 21, 1981, Bartolome Paja, the barangay captain of Barangay Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened from his sleep by the spouses Augusto and Fausta Gonzales. Augusto informed Paja that his wife had just killed their landlord, Lloyd Peñacerrada, and thus would like to surrender to the authorities.
When arraigned on September 16, 1981, Augusto and Fausta both entered a plea of not guilty. Before trial, however, Jose Huntoria who claimed to have witnessed the killing of Lloyd Peñacerrada, presented himself to Nanie Peñacerrada, the victim's widow, on October 6, 1981, and volunteered to testify for the prosecution. He stated that he clearly saw all the accused ganging upon and takings turns in stabbing and hacking the victim Lloyd Peñacerrada, near a "linasan" or threshing platform as the place was then awash in moonlight. A reinvestigation of the case was therefore conducted by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo on the basis of which an Amended Information, dated March 3, 1982, naming as additional accused Custodio Gonzales, Sr. (the herein appellant) Custodio Gonzales, Jr., Nerio Gonzales, and Rogelio Lanida, was filed. Except Fausta who admitted killing Lloyd Peñacerrada in defense of her honor as the deceased attempted to rape her, all the accused denied participation in the crime.
In the decision dated October 31, 1984 on the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. The case then was brought to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or Not the evidence are sufficient to convict the appellant of the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt
Ruling:
No, we find the same insufficient to convict the appellant of the crime charged. Huntoria testified that he clearly saw all the accused, including the appellant, take turns in hacking and stabbing Lloyd Peñacerrada. According to him, he recognized the six accused as the malefactors because the scene was then illuminated by the moon. He further stated that the stabbing and hacking took about an hour. But on cross-examination, Huntoria admitted that he could not determine who among the six accused did the stabbing and/or hacking and what particular weapon was used by each of them. Thus this principal witness did not say, because he could not whether the appellant "hacked or "stabbed" victim. In fact, Huntoria does not know what specific act was performed by the appellant.
Finally, while indeed alibi is a weak defense, under appropriate circumstances, like in the instant case in which the participation of the appellant is not beyond cavil it may be considered as exculpatory. Courts should not at once look with disfavor at the defense of alibi for if taken in the light of the other evidence on record, it may be sufficient to acquit the accused.
In fine, the guilt of the appellant has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED. Costs de oficio.
Images from this site are from Unsplash and Pexels.