G.R. No. 137035 ; November 23, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GALING ESMANA and DAGA GINANG, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of June 3, 1995, in Sitio Old Bantangan, Columbio, Sultan Kudarat, Rogelio Armada and the victim, Adelino Lastimoso, went outside their house to investigate barking dogs. As they descended, Rogelio heard gunfire and saw Adelino fall, shot. Rogelio immediately beamed his flashlight toward the source, illuminating the faces of his neighbors, Galing Esmana and Daga Ginang, who were about ten meters away armed with firearms. Galing was in a crouching position, pointing his gun at Adelino. The assailants fled upon being illuminated. The wounded Adelino told his wife, Serianing, that it was Esmana and Ginang who shot him before he was taken to the hospital, where he died the next day from a gunshot wound.
The accused interposed the defense of alibi. Daga Ginang claimed he was drinking at a store and later at home with his wife during the incident. Galing Esmana alleged he was at home having dinner with his family. Their respective witnesses corroborated their presence elsewhere but provided estimations of time without precise reference. The trial court convicted both accused of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, also awarding various damages.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Rogelio Armada, who knew the appellants personally as neighbors and clearly saw their faces when he flashed his light at them, prevails over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. The Court found no ill motive for Rogelio to falsely testify against them. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the unarmed victim no opportunity to defend himself. The shooting from a distance of ten meters, without any provocation, ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants.
However, the Court modified the damages awarded. While it upheld the awards for civil indemnity, actual, and moral damages, it deleted the award for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages require the presence of aggravating circumstances to be proper. Since no generic aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the award had no legal basis. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed as the proper penalty for murder absent any modifying circumstances.