GR L 29724; (August 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29724 August 29, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAURO TIZON and APOLINARIO TERANA, defendants, APOLINARIO TERANA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On April 24, 1966, in Cabucgayan, Leyte, Honofre Cabaltierra was fatally shot from behind while in his yard with Fructuoso Lamoste. The assailants, Apolinario Terana, Mauro Tizon, and Teodorico Tizon, were positioned behind a large boulder approximately 2.5 meters away. Eyewitnesses, including Lamoste and the victim’s wife, saw Terana holding a homemade shotgun immediately after the shot was fired. The victim, sustaining eight gunshot wounds to the back, identified his assailants before dying. Teodorico Tizon initially pleaded guilty but later testified at trial that he was the shooter, claiming self-defense. Terana and Mauro Tizon pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted all three of murder. Teodorico and Mauro did not appeal, but Terana’s death sentence was elevated for automatic review.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the guilt of appellant Apolinario Terana for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt. A subsidiary issue involves the proper appreciation of aggravating circumstances affecting the penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed Terana’s conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the collective testimonies of eyewitnesses Fructuoso Lamoste and Gregoria Cabaltierra, the victim’s wife, to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish Terana’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Their positive identification of Terana at the scene, holding the weapon, directly contradicted his alibi, which was inherently weak and unsupported by credible evidence. The claim of self-defense by co-accused Teodorico Tizon was rightly rejected by the trial court, as the nature and location of the wounds (eight entrance wounds on the victim’s back) utterly negated any unlawful aggression on the victim’s part and conclusively proved treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing as murder.
Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s appreciation of four aggravating circumstances. The Court held that nocturnity was not aggravating as it was not purposely sought; evident premeditation was not proven with sufficient clarity; and dwelling could not be appreciated as the attack occurred in the yard, not inside the house. With treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no other modifying circumstances, the proper penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). The indemnity was also increased to P12,000.00.