G.R. No. 86164 ; April 3, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELCHOR SIMENE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from an altercation on October 1, 1980, in Punta, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte. Earlier that evening, Ronald Remotigue threw a stone at the son of accused Melchor Simene, prompting Simene to confront and fight with Ronald. Later, around 7:00 PM, the victim, Mario Remotigue (Ronald’s brother), was walking with companions Cesar Patac and Herminigildo Simbajon near a cemetery. Prosecution witness Cesar Patac testified that while walking ahead of Mario, he heard an impact, turned around, and saw Simene holding a round stick (“olise”) with both hands as if having just struck a blow. He saw the victim staggering and identified Simene, whom he had known for five years, running past them carrying the stick. The fatally injured Mario told his father he was clubbed by Simene before succumbing to his head injury the next day.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Simene of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Simene appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Patac, and asserting his defense of denial and alibi. He also questioned the validity of the judgment rendered by a judge who did not personally hear all the witnesses.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the prosecution proved Simene’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court found the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of eyewitness Cesar Patac, credible and sufficient. Patac’s immediate turn upon hearing the impact allowed him to see Simene in a striking posture with the weapon, the victim staggering, and Simene fleeing. His identification was reliable given his familiarity with Simene, the illumination from a nearby yard light, and the absence of any proven motive to falsely testify. The dying declaration of the victim to his father corroborated Patac’s account. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as Simene failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The Court also held that a judge may validly decide a case based on the transcript of stenographic notes, and the factual findings of the trial court, which observed the defense witnesses, are entitled to great weight.
On the second issue, the Court agreed that treachery was present. The attack from behind with a club was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, thereby qualifying the killing as Murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity were thus affirmed.