In People v. Albarido, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Abundio Albarido and Benedicto Igdoy for multiple murder, holding that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies do not undermine their credibility when the witnesses positively identify the accused. The Court emphasized that affidavits, often taken ex parte, are less reliable than in-court testimonies. This ruling underscores the importance of positive identification by witnesses and the trial court’s assessment of their credibility, even when minor discrepancies exist between their testimonies and prior statements, impacting how courts evaluate evidence in criminal cases.

When Trails Turn Treacherous: Can Minor Discrepancies Doom a Murder Conviction?

The case revolves around the tragic events of June 15, 1987, in Kananga, Leyte, where Celso Larbo, Danilo Palacio, and Lauro Palacio were ambushed and killed. Abundio Albarido and Benedicto Igdoy were charged with multiple murder, with the prosecution presenting eyewitness accounts from Maximo Peña and Jose Palacio, who were part of the group attacked. These witnesses identified Albarido and Igdoy as the perpetrators. The defense, however, argued that inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies and prior affidavits cast doubt on their credibility, suggesting the identification was unreliable. The central legal question is whether these inconsistencies were significant enough to undermine the conviction, considering the positive identification made by the witnesses.

The Supreme Court addressed the inconsistencies between the affidavits and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Court reiterated a well-established principle in Philippine jurisprudence, stating,

“When there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.”

The rationale behind this rule lies in the understanding that affidavits are often prepared ex parte and may not accurately reflect the declarant’s intent due to omissions, misunderstandings, or the influence of the person drafting the affidavit. This principle acknowledges the inherent limitations of affidavits as a form of evidence.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the inconsistencies pointed out by the appellants were minor and did not detract from the overall credibility of the witnesses. These inconsistencies pertained to details such as the type of weapons used by the assailants and the sequence of events during the attack. The Court clarified that such minor inconsistencies are common and even expected in eyewitness accounts, as different individuals perceive and recall events differently. Moreover, these discrepancies do not necessarily indicate dishonesty; rather, they can enhance credibility by dispelling any suspicion that the testimonies were fabricated or rehearsed.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the consistent identification of Albarido and Igdoy as the perpetrators of the crime. Both Maximo Peña and Jose Palacio positively identified the appellants as being present at the scene of the crime and participating in the attack. The Court noted that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and found them to be credible. The Supreme Court gave considerable weight to the trial court’s assessment, acknowledging its unique position to evaluate the witnesses’ truthfulness and sincerity. As the Court stated in People v. Lerio, 324 SCRA 76 (2000):

“Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any showing of palpable mistake or grave abuse of discretion which is not present in this case.”

The defense also argued that the failure of Melchor Palacio, the father of two of the victims, to identify the assailants weakened the prosecution’s case. However, the Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court cited numerous cases to support this proposition, including People v. Javier, 122 SCRA 830, reinforcing the principle that the quality, not the quantity, of evidence is paramount.

Moreover, the Court addressed the appellants’ defense of alibi, which they presented to distance themselves from the crime scene. Benedicto Igdoy claimed he was in Hibucawon, Jaro, Leyte, while Abundio Albarido stated he was at his house, approximately three kilometers from the scene. The Court found these alibis unconvincing, as the distances were not significant enough to make it physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene during the commission of the crime. The Court further noted that the appellants’ positive identification by the prosecution witnesses rendered their alibis worthless. Thus, the Court found the accused defense unconvincing.

Analyzing the circumstances surrounding the killings, the Supreme Court found that the crime was committed with treachery, which qualified the killing as murder. Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The Court determined that the attack on Celso Larbo, Danilo Palacio, and Lauro Palacio was sudden and unexpected, leaving them with no opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, the use of firearms and bolos against unarmed victims demonstrated a clear intent to ensure the success of the attack. The presence of abuse of superior strength was also noted. Because abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery.

The Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding that nighttime was an aggravating circumstance, as there was no evidence to suggest that the appellants purposely sought the darkness of night to facilitate the commission of the crime or prevent its discovery. Absent any ordinary aggravating circumstance, the imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua, as prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, the Court sustained the trial court’s award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of each victim and, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, awarded exemplary damages of P25,000.00 to each of the same heirs, considering the proven presence of treachery.

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies undermined their credibility and the validity of the murder conviction, despite the positive identification of the accused. The Court considered whether these inconsistencies were substantial enough to cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
Why did the Court give more weight to the testimonies than the affidavits?	The Court favored the testimonies because affidavits are often taken ex parte and may be incomplete or influenced by the person preparing the affidavit. Testimonies, on the other hand, are given under oath and subject to cross-examination, making them more reliable.
What constitutes treachery in the context of murder?	Treachery exists when the offender employs means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves, arising from the defense the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack that leaves the victim defenseless.
Is the testimony of a single witness sufficient for conviction?	Yes, the testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction, provided that the testimony is positive and convincing to the court. The Court prioritizes the quality of evidence over the quantity.
How does the Court assess the credibility of witnesses?	The Court relies heavily on the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ demeanor and truthfulness. The trial court has the opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand, making its assessment highly valuable.
What is the significance of motive in criminal cases?	Motive becomes relevant when there is doubt on the identity of the malefactors. If the accused are positively identified, the prosecution’s failure to prove motive is immaterial.
What are the requirements for a successful alibi defense?	For an alibi to succeed, the accused must prove that they were at another place and that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. The requirements of time and place must be strictly met.
What is civil indemnity and exemplary damages in criminal cases?	Civil indemnity is compensation awarded to the heirs of the victim for the death caused by the crime. Exemplary damages are awarded as a form of punishment or example, especially when there are aggravating circumstances like treachery.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Albarido underscores the importance of eyewitness testimony and the trial court’s role in assessing credibility. It clarifies that minor inconsistencies do not negate positive identification and affirms the principle that treachery qualifies a killing as murder. This case provides valuable insights into how courts evaluate evidence and apply legal principles in criminal proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Albarido, G.R. No. 102367, October 25, 2001