G.R. No. 129051 July 28, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO MOLINA y FLORES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On July 14, 1995, around 10:00 PM, Domingo Flores was asleep in his house in Laoac, Pangasinan. His daughter, Melanie, witnessed her father’s cousin, accused-appellant Romeo Molina, enter through the kitchen, approach the sleeping victim, and strike his head with a stone before stabbing him in the neck. Melanie positively identified Molina, illuminated by a nearby lamp. After Molina fled, Melanie sought help from her grandfather, Eufrosinio Flores. The dying victim, cradled by his father, identified his assailant as his “insan Romy.” Domingo Flores later died from his injuries.
The defense presented an alibi. Molina claimed that earlier that same afternoon, he was mauled by the victim and another man. He sought treatment at a hospital and later spent the night at the house of a nursing attendant, Alejandro Duyag, where he stayed for about a month, unaware of the killing. He denied any prior animosity with the victim. The trial court convicted Molina of Murder, qualified by treachery, and aggravated by dwelling, imposing the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Romeo Molina of Murder and imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty. The positive identification by eyewitness Melanie Flores, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, and the dying declaration of the victim himself, conclusively established Molina’s guilt, rendering his alibi weak and unavailing. The killing was attended by treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and deliberate, directed at a sleeping and defenseless victim, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant.
The Court, however, found that the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling was offset by the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. The invasion of the victim’s home was aggravated, as the sanctity of the dwelling was violated. Nevertheless, the prosecution did not rebut evidence that the victim had participated in mauling the accused-appellant hours earlier. This unjust provocation, from someone Molina regarded as a father, constituted a grave offense that produced a powerful motive for retaliation, thereby mitigating his liability. Consequently, with the offsetting circumstances, the prescribed penalty for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the rules for mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed in lieu of the death penalty. The award of damages was sustained.