G.R. No. 188329 ; June 20, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUPERTO DONES a.k.a. Perto, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On January 15, 2002, spouses Melanie and Tersiro de Gala were walking home through rice paddies in Sitio Bacolod, Quezon, after selling shrimps. Melanie, walking ahead with a flashlight, was waiting for Tersiro to cross a gate when a man standing five meters away shot Tersiro. Melanie directed the flashlight beam at the assailant’s face and recognized him as Ruperto Dones, a former co-worker at the fishpond they oversaw. Dones continued firing at the fallen victim. Melanie turned off the light, called for help, and Dones fled. Tersiro died from multiple gunshot wounds.
The prosecution established that Dones harbored a grudge against Tersiro, who allegedly discredited him before their employer. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Dones was pumping water at a nearby fishpond with companions who did not testify. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dones of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) affirming the conviction based on the eyewitness testimony; and (2) appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification on damages. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Melanie’s credibility. The rule is that factual findings of trial courts, especially on witness credibility, are accorded great weight and respect unless substantial facts were overlooked. The trial court found Melanie’s testimony “frank, categorical and straightforward,” a finding affirmed by the appellate court. Her act of momentarily shining the light on the assailant’s face was natural for identification before fear prompted her to turn it off. Her recognition of Dones was credible given their prior two-year acquaintance. The weak alibi defense, unsupported by corroborating testimony and failing to prove physical impossibility of being at the crime scene, could not prevail over the positive identification.
On the second issue, treachery was correctly appreciated. The essence of treachery is the deliberate adoption of means of execution that ensure the safety of the assailant from any defense or retaliation by the victim. The attack was sudden, at night, in a remote area, and targeted the victims who were traversing waist-high grass and were caught completely off-guard. Dones, positioned in advance, opened fire without warning. The continuation of shots even after Tersiro fell demonstrated a deliberate method to ensure death without risk to himself. These circumstances constituted alevosia, qualifying the killing as murder. The Court modified the damages, ordering Dones to pay ₱50,000 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000 as moral damages, and an additional ₱30,000 as exemplary damages due to the presence of treachery.