GR 135026; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135026 ; February 15, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NILO HERMO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Nilo Hermo, along with two others at large, was charged with Murder for the killing of Tito Hermosura. The prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Jaime Hermosura (the victim’s brother), testified that on June 9, 1996, he saw his clubfooted brother being chased, stumble, and then stabbed by Nilo Hermo with a kutsilyo, after which Hermo’s companions took turns hitting the victim. Jaime immediately reported the incident to the police. Appellant was arrested two days later. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Hermo was in a different barangay attending to a sick neighbor during the incident. The trial court convicted Hermo of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay P50,000.00 in civil indemnity.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of Murder based on the credibility of the lone eyewitness account and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, emphasizing that the evaluation of witness credibility is primarily within its domain. Jaime Hermosura’s reaction—seeking police help instead of immediately aiding his brother—does not undermine his testimony, as people react differently to startling events. His positive identification of Hermo under a nearby lamp post’s fluorescent light was deemed credible. The Court rejected the alibi for being weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court agreed with the trial court’s finding of abuse of superior strength. This was established by the autopsy report indicating multiple assailants, the fact that the victim was unarmed and physically handicapped (clubfooted and short-fingered), and the use of weapons against him, creating a notorious inequality of forces. However, the Court corrected the penalty’s basis, stating that since the penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death (an indivisible penalty) and no other circumstances were present, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua applies under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, not the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court modified the damages, awarding P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages due to the aggravating circumstance.