GR 106282; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106282 January 20, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, SR. y AMORES, et al., accused, PABLITO RENDOQUE y ABIO, QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, JR. y ABIO, and ESPERATO SALAQUIN y BACUAC, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of April 21, 1988, Abundio Sido and his family were inside their house in Barangay Basiao, San Jose, Negros Oriental, when a group of six armed men arrived. The men, wearing fatigue uniforms, shouted for Abundio to come out, claiming to be military personnel. Upon his wife Florida opening the door, illuminated by a kerosene lamp held by their daughter Elvie, both witnesses positively identified the appellants—Pablito Rendoque, Quinciano Rendoque, Jr., and Esperato Salaquin—along with three others. Pablito Rendoque then shouted “fire,” prompting Salaquin and Quinciano Jr. to shoot their shotguns toward the wall where Abundio was seated, hitting him in the back and shoulder and causing his death.
The appellants interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. Pablito Rendoque claimed he was on duty as a security guard in Dumaguete City, supported by testimonies from his co-guard and agency officer. Quinciano Jr. and Salaquin, along with the three acquitted co-accused, asserted they were attending an “Anti-Communist” meeting in another barangay at the time of the incident. The trial court convicted the three appellants of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellants Pablito Rendoque, Quinciano Rendoque, Jr., and Esperato Salaquin for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitnesses Florida and Elvie Sido, who knew the appellants well as neighbors and relatives, to be credible and convincing. Their testimonies were consistent and detailed, describing how the appellants, armed and in uniform, arrived and fired upon the victim. The Court held that such positive identification prevails over the defenses of alibi and denial, which are inherently weak. For alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that the accused was so far away that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The appellants failed to meet this stringent requirement. The evidence showed that the distance between the crime scene and the locations cited in their alibis was not insurmountable, making their presence at the shooting physically possible.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The appellants, by pretending to be military personnel and demanding the victim come out, employed a ruse that facilitated the attack without risk to themselves. The victim was unarmed and seated inside his home when fired upon through the wall, constituting a direct assault on his person with no possibility of retaliation. The Court modified the damages, increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and awarding P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.