People vs. Ohayas, et.al (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AMBROSIO OHAYAS, ET. AL

G.R. No. 207516, June 19, 2017 

TIJAM, J.:

Facts: Appellant, together with his companions, walked towards the place where the victim was conversing with his friends. Lou noticed appellant had in his hands a shotgun while his companions were carrying torches. Appellant suddenly, and without any warning, shot Armando Jr. who was hit in his right abdomen. Not contented, appellant continued to fire at the victims. Sany was hit on his right finger, while Lou, although not directly hit, nevertheless suffered injuries when the bullets ricocheted.

Appellant claimed that he was mauled at Sitio Bonbon by a certain "Toper" prior to the shooting incident, and because of that, his cousins wanted to avenge him. Appellant, however, prevented them from doing so. On the day of the shooting, appellant claimed that he was fishing at sea. At around 8 o'clock in the evening, he heard gunshots coming from Sitio Bonbon. He felt afraid, so he stopped fishing and went home. On the way home, he was told by SP03 Bancog that someone died in the shooting incident, and that appellant was the one to be blamed.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of murder.

Ruling: The elements of the crime of murder are: (I) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish that: (1) Armando, Jr. was shot and killed; (2) the accused-appellant was the person who killed him; (3) Armando, Jr.'s killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery; and (4) the killing of Armando, Jr. was neither parricide nor infanticide.

Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. In this case, suffice it to state that the defense failed to establish that it was physically impossible for the accused-appellant to have perpetrated the offense.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC, finding appellant guilty of the crime of murder.