G.R. No. 152205 ; February 5, 2004
REGORE BALDEO, petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

On February 16, 1996, Luisito Caparas was shot and killed in Tiaong, Quezon. The prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Lourdes Basilan, testified that she saw petitioner Regore Baldeo shoot the victim multiple times at close range with a short firearm around 6:30 a.m. on Masangkay Street. She stated she was about two arms’ length away, recognized both men, and saw Baldeo fire three to five shots, the first hitting Caparas’s forehead, before the petitioner casually walked to a car and fled. The post-mortem examination revealed five gunshot wounds, causing severe hemorrhage. Evidence of a prior dispute was presented, showing the victim had accused Baldeo’s wife, a lawyer, of misappropriating client funds.
The defense presented alibi, claiming Baldeo was at a different location attending to his sick child at the time of the shooting. He and his witnesses asserted he was only informed of the incident later that morning. The trial court convicted Baldeo of Murder qualified by treachery, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Baldeo appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the credibility of the eyewitness and the finding of treachery.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the eyewitness testimony was credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court upheld the credibility of eyewitness Lourdes Basilan. Her positive identification, given her proximity to the event and familiarity with the accused, prevailed over the defense of alibi, which was not physically impossible. Alibi is inherently weak and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, which was lacking. The testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for a conviction if it meets the test of credibility, which Basilan’s account did.
However, the Court ruled that treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed the victim and petitioner were conversing before the shooting. This initial interaction negated a finding that the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim was rendered utterly defenseless from the very outset. The manner of assault did not conclusively show a deliberate and calculated execution. Thus, without any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed was Homicide. The penalty was modified accordingly, and civil indemnity and actual damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs.