GR 130963; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130963; November 27, 2001
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Mariano Pascua, Jr. @ “Pedro” & John Does, accused, Mariano Pascua, Jr. @ “Pedro”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of November 14, 1992, in Barangay Doña Imelda, Diffun, Quirino, armed men entered the house of Barangay Captain Ernesto Quiming. The victim’s wife, Sanita, and their children were held at gunpoint. Sanita recognized one of the intruders as accused-appellant Mariano Pascua, Jr., a neighbor and barangay councilman, despite his attempt to conceal his face with a bonnet. She knew him well and identified him by his eyes, nose, mouth, and beard. The assailants demanded the victim’s firearm. When Ernesto arrived home, he was shot by a man from a waiting shed. Upon seeing this, Pascua and his companions ran outside. The victim was shot again, and Pascua fired the third shot that hit Ernesto in the head, causing his death.
The prosecution established a prior motive: during a barangay meeting on August 30, 1992, Pascua had thrown a hand grenade at Ernesto and later attempted to shoot him. After the killing, Pascua and his family left their residence. A forensic chemist testified that paraffin tests on Pascua were positive for gunpowder nitrates. The defense presented alibi, claiming Pascua was at a different location.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Mariano Pascua, Jr. for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Sanita Quiming and her daughter Aileen, who both knew Pascua intimately as a long-time neighbor, prevails over his denial and alibi. Their testimonies were credible, consistent, and detailed, noting Pascua’s recognizable features despite the bonnet. The Court found no ill motive for the witnesses to falsely accuse him. The prior altercation established a clear motive for the killing.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, as the victim was shot while walking home unarmed, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. The Court, however, modified the awarded damages. Actual damages were disallowed for lack of receipts. The heirs are entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, which are mandatory upon proof of death. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.