49 People vs. Pajares, 210 SCRA 237 June 23, 1992

PEOPLE v.
PAJARES (1992)
FACTS: Renato R. Perez, a resident of Paco, Manila, is the victim in Frustrated Homicide. He testified
that at about 11:30 p.m., he and the deceased Diosdado Viojan were on their way to a store located to buy
something. They were walking abreast with each other, the deceased was at his right side and was a bit
ahead of him, when appellant Pajares suddenly appeared from behind and hit Viojan with a baseball bat at
the back of his head. The latter ran a short distance and fell down near the store. When Perez tried to help
Viojan, he, too, was attacked by Pajares with the baseball bat hitting him at the back below the left
shoulder. He then grappled with the appellant for the possession of the baseball bat but the latter's
companions, Rudy Dokling, Popoy, Inggo and Lauro Duado mauled him until he lost consciousness.
He was brought to the Philippine General Hospital where he was treated for the injuries he sustained. On
cross examination, he stated that he has known appellant Pajares for less than a year and that although
they both live in Zone 89, he and the deceased belonged to a group which is an adversary of the group of
the accused. Appellant Pajares denied the allegations of the prosecution. He asserts that he knew the
deceased Viojan by the name Dado, having met him once at the store, and Renato Perez by the
name Balat. At the time of the incident, he was inside the store with about eight (8) other people watching
television. Hence, he did not see who hit Viojan and Renato Perez. After the commotion, he went home
and slept. At about 3:30 in the morning, he was arrested inside their house. Without asking any question,
he went with the arresting officers to the police station. At the police detachment, he was coerced to admit
his participation in the crime since a gun was poked at him. He identified his signature at the Booking
Sheet and Arrest Report but alleged that he signed the same without being allowed to read the contents
without the assistance of counsel and while being held at the collar at the back of his shirt. He
likewise stated that during investigation, the investigating policemen molested him like "pinipitik-pitik"
his ears with rubber band or chopping his neck with karate chops.
On cross examination, he testified that his house is about five (5) houses away from the scene of the
crime. He likewise denied any knowledge about any quarrel between his brother, Roberto Pajares and the
deceased Viojan. Appellant Pajares asserts that the trial court gravely erred in imposing the penalty of
reclusion perpetua upon him. He claims that such a penalty is tantamount to a cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment which is prohibited by the Constitution. Appellant points out that hours before the
incident, Roberto Pajares, appellant's younger brother, was mauled by the group of Viojan. The
mauling of the latter is a big insult and truly offending to the appellant and his family. Hence, the
clubbing of Viojan by appellant was a vindication of the grave offense committed against his family.
Considering further that the appellant was just 19 years old at the time he committed the offense, the
penalty imposed by the court a quo should have been lower.
ISSUES: WON the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense can be
appreciated in his favor.
RULING: No. The Court ruled that the appellant's sole defense is alibi. According to him, he was inside
the store watching television, when the incident occurred. Alibi is the weakest defense an accused can
concoct. In order to prosper, it must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could
have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of the commission. The
appellant was was within the vicinity of the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
Besides, appellant was positively identified by Renato Perez as the perpetrator of the crime. In the face of
the clear and positive testimony of the prosecution witness regarding the participation of the accused in
the crime, the accused's alibi falls into emptiness. The positive identification of the accused by the witness
as the perpetrator of the crime cannot be overcome by the mere denial of the accused. Such positive
identification of the accused that he killed the victim establishes the guilt of the accused beyond moral
certainty.
Having established the guilt, the next question is whether or not the mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of a grave offense can be appreciated in his favor. While it may be true that appellant's brother
Roberto Pajares was mauled by the companions of the deceased at about 11:30 a.m. of October 11, 1985
as shown in the entry in the Police Blotter and by appellant's brother himself, it must be emphasized that
there is a lapse of about ten (10) hours between said incident and the killing of Diosdado Viojan.
Such interval of time was more than sufficient to enable appellant to recover his. Hence, the
mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be appreciated in his
favor.
The Court AFFIRMED the lower court’s decision with modifications as to indemnity.

49 People vs. Pajares, 210 SCRA 237 June 23, 1992

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

49 People vs. Pajares, 210 SCRA 237 June 23, 1992

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

49 People vs. Pajares, 210 SCRA 237 June 23, 1992

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v.

You might also like